| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Clementina
God's of Eve
   |
Posted - 2006.08.17 18:11:00 -
[121]
A Good basket would probably have all of the verious tech levels in it. Consider This setup
Moa
4 250mm Prototype I Gauss Guns
2 Assult launcher II's
1 10MN Microwarpdrive I
2 ECM Multispectral Jammer I's
1 Sensor Booster I
2 Reactor Control Unit II's
1 800mm Rolled Tungston Plate
1 Ammater Small Armor Repairer
1000 piranha light missiles
500 antimatter medium charges
500 lead charges
500 iron charges
|
Brian Detaah
Destructive Influence
|
Posted - 2006.08.17 18:16:00 -
[122]
 Originally by: Kanuo Ashkeron
Originally by: Brian Detaah
"If you add just money you get inflation, if you add just quantity you get deflation."
Its this part I disagree with. It doesnt follow from the equation that if money supply rises then prices rise. It only follows if quantity is constant.
PS: In economics and in movies, whenever i hear "austrians" are involved, i reach for my gun.
Above is only a simplification, to demonstrate the effects of adding either money or quantity. Of course you will never get constant quantity in a real system.
The point is, that both should be increased not only one.
Then you should add the hallmark of the true economist: "all other things being equal"
------------------------------------------------
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'
|
Altaree
Gallente
Red Frog Investments
Daikoku Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.08.17 18:27:00 -
[123]
Anyone else having problems seeing images that are hosted on http://staff.ccpgames.com/redundancy/devblogs/ ?
StopThePop |
Cpt Buck
Huff Technologies
|
Posted - 2006.08.17 18:47:00 -
[124]
Edited by: Cpt Buck on 17/08/2006 18:49:08
Interesting Blog and thread
A few thoughts that pop into my head...dont know where theyre going though.
Insurance payout (T2) in relation to inflation, insurance is static and does not represent true value of the product, only the build value, however changing this would only create another faucet and probobally cause the isk to deflate.
Also, in my humble opinion i think eve has the THE best and most stable economy in any 'real' (as in good :P) MMORPG out there, gratz... and reading your blog really enforced it for me, that you guys are working hard for us :)
|
|
Redundancy
|
Posted - 2006.08.17 18:55:00 -
[125]
Originally by: Altaree
Anyone else having problems seeing images that are hosted on http://staff.ccpgames.com/redundancy/devblogs/ ?
staff website server appears to have gone all funny, I've emailed the admin.
|
|
rodgerd
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2006.08.17 19:23:00 -
[126]
Originally by: Ralle030583
Edited by: Ralle030583 on 17/08/2006 10:49:20
Edited by: Ralle030583 on 17/08/2006 10:47:14
Originally by: rodgerd
Edited by: rodgerd on 17/08/2006 10:42:01
Edited by: rodgerd on 17/08/2006 10:41:23
Originally by: Ralle030583
Originally by: Zarch AlDain
Give all NPC corps a corporate tax rate of 5% for any character over 3 months old :)
/signed!
But that alone wont solve the problem ;-)
The problem? I didn't see a reference in the blog to there being a problem with inflation in Eve. Or is the "problem" that people who play differently to you have any assets at all?
if think that inflation will come one day because much more ISK are generated (agent missions, bounty, insurance) than consumed.. and that have to be fixed in my opinion.
Pre-emptively fixing inflation is a great way to get deflation. Which is a considerably worse problem (everyone sits on their money, because it's becoming more valuable; industry collapses).
|
Cervalan
Minmatar
Starfield United Technologies LLP
|
Posted - 2006.08.17 20:27:00 -
[127]
Edited by: Cervalan on 17/08/2006 20:27:35
Quote:
Pre-emptively fixing inflation is a great way to get deflation. Which is a considerably worse problem (everyone sits on their money, because it's becoming more valuable; industry collapses).
Rubbish.
Thats one of the many deflation myths debunked here.
One telling quote:
"For example, both the U.S. and Germany enjoyed very solid growth rates at the end of the 19th century, when the price level fell in both countries during more than two decades. In that period, money wage rates remained by and large stable, but incomes effectively increased in real terms because the same amount of money could buy ever more consumersÆ goods. So beneficial was this deflationary period for the broad masses that it came to the first great crisis of socialist theory, which had predicted the exact opposite outcome of unbridled capitalism. Eduard Bernstein and other revisionists appeared and made the case for a modified socialism. Today we are in dire need of some revisionism too û deflation revisionism that is."
Deflation hurts governments.
------
Economics 101 for the hard of thinking.
Hazlett Economics in 1 lesson
Rothbard Economics |
Brian Detaah
Destructive Influence
|
Posted - 2006.08.17 21:42:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Cervalan
Edited by: Cervalan on 17/08/2006 20:27:35
Quote:
Pre-emptively fixing inflation is a great way to get deflation. Which is a considerably worse problem (everyone sits on their money, because it's becoming more valuable; industry collapses).
Rubbish.
Thats one of the many deflation myths debunked here.
One telling quote:
"For example, both the U.S. and Germany enjoyed very solid growth rates at the end of the 19th century, when the price level fell in both countries during more than two decades. In that period, money wage rates remained by and large stable, but incomes effectively increased in real terms because the same amount of money could buy ever more consumersÆ goods. So beneficial was this deflationary period for the broad masses that it came to the first great crisis of socialist theory, which had predicted the exact opposite outcome of unbridled capitalism. Eduard Bernstein and other revisionists appeared and made the case for a modified socialism. Today we are in dire need of some revisionism too û deflation revisionism that is."
Deflation hurts governments.
The only thing to say to liberaterian clap-trap like this ... And a Pony!
------------------------------------------------
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2006.08.17 22:07:00 -
[129]
Edited by: Ghoest on 17/08/2006 22:15:24
EVE doesnt have much inflation largely for what I will call(because I dont know the right word) "escalation".
The majority of the player base is able to is able to consistantly advance to either larger equipment or more technological equipment - both of which are more expensive(for both production and supply reasons.)
In the real world this process takes place over many years. In EVE it happens rather quickly.
It works pretty well for game purposes, but its not realistic.
EDIT: I need to clarify. This doesnt stop inflation. It rather makes it a moot point.
T1 inflation doesnt happen for a more simple reason - the prices are nearly bottomed out to start with.
You could see inflation with faction drops, but the ecalation in production gear helps limit momey supply, and also is faction drop rate from rats are easily manipulated by the devs.
Wherever you went - here you are.
|
Naxxiz
GalacTECH Unlimited
|
Posted - 2006.08.18 01:22:00 -
[130]
Eve isn't suffering from inflation. T2 prices are going up because prices are going up, the core components(minerals) are have remained steady. There's only limited manufactoring(bpos). Core prices on most items have remained steady. Its like gas/petrol, gas/petrol prices have gone up because of demand and lack of supply not because of inflation. CCP needs to address the rising valuation of T2 products and seed more BPOs.
Remember people, we are talking about valuation of isk. Not the valuation of the market as a whole. ISK has remained steady. Mining doesn't create ISK, its creates minerals, destroying a ship doesn't effect isk except for insurance payouts. People mine more, value of minerals go down. People starting loosing their ship more often, value of minerals and bpos go up. If CCP removed all the ISK faucets and instead paid bounties and missions rewards with minerals and bpcs, the valuation of ISK would go up and valuation of minerals and bpcs would go down. ISK would become in short suppy as sinks would eat into total amount of isk in the game. You could actually remove isk from EVE and go straight with a bartering system though it would be very inconvient. Who wants haul around goods to barter with.
|
|
|
Miss Overlord
|
Posted - 2006.08.18 01:39:00 -
[131]
ok no one has mentioned factional items which i assume are dependant upon the amount of NPCs killed serpentis and guristas seem to lead the way here with prices lower than blood and sansha
|
InstaMaker
|
Posted - 2006.08.18 02:15:00 -
[132]
Ok I was an insurance agent for 10 years so I know a little about REAL insurance. The prob with the game insurance is it is not based on real time statistics. And in REAL LIFE insurance operates at a loss (really it does) it is used to make cash that is invested elsewere by others to make profit. So lets just stay away from whole issue of the insurance and focus elsewere on the economy. Or else one of the poor devs is going to be stuck codeing an acturay for the rest of his or her life. I belive the answer to inflation lies elsewere perhaps faction taxs docking fees and reprocessing fees being added or increased. Trust me insurance in the game is fine as it is if you look at the big picture.
|
InnerDrive
|
Posted - 2006.08.18 09:09:00 -
[133]
OK
I read the devblog and lemme get this one straight here.
According to the devblog we are supposed to all fly T1 bs coz T2 ships are luxery items.
So why put out all those skills and why do i spend so much training to use those T2 items when they arent for normal usage, they are luxery? im supposed to fly T1 bs...
|
Zarch AlDain
The Blackwater Brigade
|
Posted - 2006.08.18 09:12:00 -
[134]
I suggested an idea quite a few months back that now I can't find the thread in the forums (not even using the various search things).
To sumarise though what I suggested was releasing inferior quality versions of the various Tech 2 BPOS.
i.e. you might have the following BPOS:
Hawk
Hawk (inefficient)
Hawk (very inefficient)
To simplify things lets say the hawk needs 100 trit to build.
BPO Hawk would need 100 trit and produce 1 hawk
BPO Hawk (inefficient) would need 200 trit and produce 1 hawk
BPO Hawk (very inefficient) would need 400 trit and produce 1 hawk
Now through the research system 2 or 3 or maybe more times as many hawk (inefficient) BPOs would be released as are currently released of the high grade one. These would be released a while after the good quality ones as basically they are cheap knock off copies.
The BPO Hawk (very inefficient) would be seeded on the market through NPC sell orders a while after the inefficient ones are released.
This means that anyone can go into tech 2 production - but it will cost then four times as much if they don't do R&D to make the items - or twice as much if they do do R&D. This stops massively over inflated T2 prices (as if it goes over 4* build cost you might as well make it yourself) but keeps an advantage to R&D.
An alternative to the plan would be to require a 'licensing fee' to be paid for each run done with the innefficient versions and take the extra cost in isk going to NPCs rather than extra minerals - depending on whether a sink was wanted.
Zarch AlDain
The Blackwater Brigade
|
Kcel Chim
Caldari
Arcane Technologies
The Five
|
Posted - 2006.08.18 10:44:00 -
[135]
Zarch Alban your system only would work on very overpriced items like a hac. Buildcost atm 25 mil, with your market bought bpo (*4) 100 mil.
However this would not work i.e. on an Interceptor.
Taranis buildcost atm 2,5-3 mil (?) with your bought bpo 10-12 mil = no profit / no sale.
The t2 problem we are facting is related to the buildtimes of the ships and their popularity. Recons and Commandships will see a similar price explosion because the time for 1 run limits the production. There is no real shortage on interceptors (ok we exclude the crow here) or on Assaultfrigs or Cov ops frigs.
Ccp simly needs to calculate the maximum amount of ships produced from 1 bpo per day and seed bpos accordingly for the bigger ships. This means if a t2 frig bpo produces 6 ships per day and a t2 cruiser bpo only 2 you need to seed 2-3 times as many cruiser bpos to bring in the same supply. You will note i said 2-3 times, the amount should be lower since the risk of losing a cruiser is less likely compared to a frig.
|
JP Moregain
Gallente
Moregain Guaranty Trust
|
Posted - 2006.08.18 10:52:00 -
[136]
Originally by: InstaMaker
Ok I was an insurance agent for 10 years so I know a little about REAL insurance. The prob with the game insurance is it is not based on real time statistics. And in REAL LIFE insurance operates at a loss (really it does) it is used to make cash that is invested elsewere by others to make profit. So lets just stay away from whole issue of the insurance and focus elsewere on the economy. Or else one of the poor devs is going to be stuck codeing an acturay for the rest of his or her life. I belive the answer to inflation lies elsewere perhaps faction taxs docking fees and reprocessing fees being added or increased. Trust me insurance in the game is fine as it is if you look at the big picture.
Actually some insurance companies operate at a loss from the pure insurance side and attempt to make up for it through the investment income. But it is a tough businesses strategy, and certainly is not the case across the board.
That aside, I agree that insurance is probably not the primary problem.
"In JP We Trust, All Others Require Collateral..." |
Zarch AlDain
The Blackwater Brigade
|
Posted - 2006.08.18 11:42:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Kcel Chim
Zarch Alban your system only would work on very overpriced items like a hac. Buildcost atm 25 mil, with your market bought bpo (*4) 100 mil.
However this would not work i.e. on an Interceptor.
Taranis buildcost atm 2,5-3 mil (?) with your bought bpo 10-12 mil = no profit / no sale.
The t2 problem we are facting is related to the buildtimes of the ships and their popularity. Recons and Commandships will see a similar price explosion because the time for 1 run limits the production. There is no real shortage on interceptors (ok we exclude the crow here) or on Assaultfrigs or Cov ops frigs.
Ccp simly needs to calculate the maximum amount of ships produced from 1 bpo per day and seed bpos accordingly for the bigger ships. This means if a t2 frig bpo produces 6 ships per day and a t2 cruiser bpo only 2 you need to seed 2-3 times as many cruiser bpos to bring in the same supply. You will note i said 2-3 times, the amount should be lower since the risk of losing a cruiser is less likely compared to a frig.
Yes people would only use the 4* cost BPOs on really expensive stuff like hacs - but even on intercepters the 2* cost ones would be useful.
And if you are operating away from empire out in 0.0 even a 4* cost one is worth it just because it means you can build them at all!
It's self limitting, if the standard BPs are able to meet demand then there would be no demand for the lower grade ones - if prices start rising though they become useful and start being used. That way they act as brakes on the rise while still allowing people to gain from their R&D.
Zarch AlDain
The Blackwater Brigade
|
LexaKosh
|
Posted - 2006.08.18 12:06:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Juwi Kotch
Actually the only ISK generating faucets I know of are agent mission rewards, NPC pirate bounties, insurance payouts, and - to a lesser extend - new account creation. No other ISK generation mechanics do exist, afaik.
The biggest ISK sink by far is the destruction of ships, modules, and cargo, which once have been paid for with ISK, at least to a certain extend. This would not apply to ships created completely out of reprocessed loot, and fitted with self looted modules and ammunition.
Juwi Kotch
You forgot an important source of any money generation: profit&greed :)
Buy a e.g. Navy Apoc for 900mill, sell it for 1.1bill. Voila, 200mill ISK out of the thin air. Been there, done that :) Anyone ever wonder why it is never a problem to sell any implants? Buy +3 for 20, sell for 30.
|
gfldex
|
Posted - 2006.08.18 12:14:00 -
[139]
I would like to know if players that leave the game work as a ISK sink. And if this ISK sink is temporary how it would effect the economy when they come back in chunks.
I know at least on char that was played as an industrialist and stoped playing because he couldn't evolve further because he dont got hands on tec 2 BPOs.
Another interesting case would be John R. Missionrunner who get's billions and quits the game of boredom. How much ISK is hidden there and what could make him spending that ISK?
--
$ perl -n -e 'print "Stop blameing pirates! Oveur is the root of all evil!\n" if m/podkill|lost my ship|gank|gate camp|Verone/;'
|
Hllaxiu
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.08.18 12:23:00 -
[140]
Originally by: InnerDrive
OK
I read the devblog and lemme get this one straight here.
According to the devblog we are supposed to all fly T1 bs coz T2 ships are luxery items.
So why put out all those skills and why do i spend so much training to use those T2 items when they arent for normal usage, they are luxery? im supposed to fly T1 bs...
ID - like many words in many fields, the economics meaning of "Luxury Goods" is not what its plain meaning is. This contrasts with a "normal good" and a "inferior good". None of these terms make any statement on the quality of the good, only on how their demand curves change with differing income levels.
PS: To anyone about to enter college/university, take an intro economics class or two no matter what field you're going into. Odds are you're required to take something like it as an elective anyways. And depending on where you are, they'll probably be fairly easy classes.
---
Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson |
|
|
Drizit
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.08.18 14:06:00 -
[141]
There is no reason for putting T2 in the category of expensive and T1 into the cheap category. T2 prices are only what they are due to a limited market and adding them to a basket would serve no purpose other than to show an incorrect increase in average income as the prices of T2 go down due to RE and more manufacturers feeding the market.
What needs to be added to the basket is the core ingredients. As someone has already pointed out, mineral prices have remained steady and would show a better result than prices of end-user goods. Basic minerals, moon minerals and Ice products would be a good indication of the economic value of Eve. Since these items vary by so little, they could be guaged against income to give an indication of the average earning potential of players.
Having said that, if you try to even out the earning potential, you create a system that makes new items way too expansive for most players (T2 for example). When new items are introduced, limited supply would put them completely out of the price range of most players.
While it is true that most T1 items are cheaper in respect to the average income, most early skills are quite fast and stepping up from frig to cruiser is not a long process in terms of skill. If the price becomes a major factor, a number of players would become disheartened that they have spent time learning the skill but now they still can't fly the ship they have trained for.
--
|
Bagehi
Caldari
BFG Industries
|
Posted - 2006.08.18 15:09:00 -
[142]
This forum seems to have devolved into pointing at T2 BPO owners and shouting unfair! A couple RL things to point out on the topic of monopolies and oligarchies:
1)In most countries, there are ôpatentsö which are government enforced monopolies. The reason for these is to spur research and development of new products in their country faster than in other countries. The countryÆs patent length is related to the speed at which new technology is produced in that country. In the Eve universe, it is conceivable that the current holders of T2 BPOs have patent rights on them. Over time, these patents will expire, and other companies will be able to reverse engineer them and build ôgenericsö. At the same time, new technologies will come out, with patents on them, and inflated prices on them to cover the cost of acquisition/research of those products. I am assuming this will happen in Eve. I am not speaking for the devs here. I think the beginnings of that can be seen in some of the new skills coming out in the Kali upgrade.
2)Another thing often over-looked is the middle man mark-up in moving goods. Due to physics, each T2 BPO can only be in one place at one time. Since each of these are probably cranking out items at full speed, it can be assumed that their owners do not move them (besides the fact that everyone and their brother would gank them if they saw a T2 BPO in their hold, to hell with the ship they were flying or sec status of the system they were in). And here is where the middleman markup comes. Since there are only a limited number of production sites in Eve, and many more regions than production sites, middlemen have to haul the products to other locations if they are to be sold in that region. So, in the case of HACs, often times, a large chunk of that profit is going to middlemen who buy a bunch of them, haul them somewhere where the prices are good and resell them. If people were to truly shop around, I would think prices would start to drop on those ships.
3)My final point is that for many items, prices are artificially deflated. HereÆs why: Pirating, NPC loots, and Mission rewards. Certain items (such as many of the ammo types) can be gotten cheaper by killing things than by building it. The frequency of loot drops of an item directly influences the sale price of that item as people try to sell off all their loot. Astute players will often figure out that they can get more cash for many items be reprocessing them and selling the minerals than by selling the item. This means that the manufacturing cost is greater than the sale price. This is true whether you mine your own minerals or not. Because if the minerals sell for more without processing them into something more complex, then it is in the interest of the person mining the minerals to sell them on the market rather than manufacture them.
Sorry to sound a bit preachy, but I have to write papers on topics like this almost daily, IÆve gotten pretty good at punching them out real fast.
|
Alyx Pretzel
Amarr
Eye E-Tek Corp.
|
Posted - 2006.08.18 16:56:00 -
[143]
I'd really like to see discussion of the base mineral side of the economy. Everyone is talking about economic health as a function of ISK creation/destruction, but minerals are the closest thing to a gold standard for ISK. Minerals are unique in that the theoretical supply is nearly infite, but the actual supply is based on how much of other goods can be purchased with it. Is it even possible to pull from the database information on total minerals mined, total minerals acquired through rat drops/missions, and total minerals lost due to ship/module construction?
The way I see it, Minerals are as much a liquid asset as a jar of pennies. Unlike ISK, for which saving large sums is a possible mode of operation, I doubt anyone saves up a lot of minerals for the next patch. Is getting mineral numbers out of the database even remotely feasible? (Running a script to 'reprocess' every module * its droprate to find a total in-out)
.
hi |
Clementina
God's of Eve
|
Posted - 2006.08.18 17:59:00 -
[144]
Something interesting that comes from all of this is the fact that you can use the insurance payouts to set monetary policy.
Insurance is in the game in the first place to lessen the death penalty, that's why it operates at a loss, because the economics of the thing really don't matter.
Interestingly enough, the amount of death penalty (and consequently PvP) can be controled by raising or lowering the payouts. If the payouts go higher, the death penalty is less, and there is more PvP. If the payouts are lower, the death penalty is greater and there is less PvP.
|
Megalift
Dark Reality
|
Posted - 2006.08.19 00:01:00 -
[145]
I have a useful suggestion for a solition for the insurance issue. Do away with it and replace it with a player corp function that will allow corps to insure their members ships. Or maybe allow corps to insure any ship, thus allowing players to run insurance companys (not sure how you will make money from ship that will be detroyed).
Given corp an in game way to insure members ships will be very useful. Alot of corps already replace ships for loses, why not make it easier.
|
Samirol
Ore Mongers
|
Posted - 2006.08.19 04:00:00 -
[146]
awesome blog, the graphics didn't work for me though
Tier 1 BS Lotto |
HughJass
|
Posted - 2006.08.19 08:19:00 -
[147]
Having limited run bpc as a secondary offering from research agents would be a good isk sink.(costing rp's and isk)
More people might do more research missions,which after fetching various items, i assume are good isk sink.(comments redun?)
The limited run would/could require greater npc produced items or even better skills.(the building requirements dont have to match or come close to orig)
Side effect a little competition for the very overpriced items.
and more players with chances of bpc/bpo
-warp fees for entering complexes,deadspace,cosmos
|
Ma Talune
Minmatar
ISS Logistics
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.08.19 10:35:00 -
[148]
This is good basic stuff and ppl really need to read this one as I see it. I have lot of famillie and friend doing RL micro's and I'm ISS Logistics so I was making my dad (chef of econimcs at a major retirement fund corp.) proud when looking into this stuff before there were such easy things as a dev post about eve case studie "the basics". This is really what I'v been telling ppl how didn't understand it all along.
So to cap up:
Read this and make your dad/mom/society theacher/familie proud that you can talk about economics at a basic lvl.
Read this so forums stops filing with ppl that don't get it (not that I'm blaming you for not wanna read on this stuff).
Read this for bragging rights with your fellow geeks that you know also know how to pwn games/ RL wiht economics.
All spelling error etc is part of the experince! 
Sig by Vincent Gaines - Evemail him and say you got recommend from me and you will surely get a good sig for a few isk! |
BobbyRaider
|
Posted - 2006.08.19 14:59:00 -
[149]
What a sexeh dev-blog !!
I actually understood something of economics for once
Good show, mate 
Bobby
|
Kweel Nakashyn
Minmatar
Aeden
|
Posted - 2006.08.19 16:38:00 -
[150]
Sorry if I didn't read all coments, reading things about EVE economy is... facinating :p.
But I'd say to dev that to me (as a non economist), deflation can't exist here because sellers have nearly no means of communication to apply concurency between themselves :
- the graph is universe based so it is a mean with far system that can't be of some sort of concurency with the product you sell and the graph melt Empire/0.0 data which is no way the same prices. Maybe an Empire graph while in Empire and a 0.0 graph while in 0.0 could be usefull for concurency...
- unability to "see" other regions : market should have been not set by regions but per range of jump so Seller A can see Seller B's price 8 jumps away even if B is 2 regions away...
- products are spread so you might have no concurency in your region but have strong concurency in the region 2 jump away : EVE's market is something close to what was Earth's economy before the invention of the phone or something ^^ (but we have Eve-mail... bah. Even strong NPC sellers can't hire guys to tell them what do their concurents ^^ :p)
Well, just my 0.02 ISK thrown into the void ^^
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |