Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
216
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 17:12:54 -
[1] - Quote
All right, let's face it - war declarations as a mechanic are incredibly counter intuitive, rage inducing, and generally stupid. I say this as the CEO of a corp that is constantly at war, both on the offense and defense.
From a "lore" point of view, the idea of a wardec is simple: your corporation is bribing CONCORD to "look the other way" so you can shoot whomever you wish in the "defending" corporation.
But if this were true, why is it that a pirate corporation can pay 50 million ISK to bribe CONCRD, but the defending (and high security standings) industrial corporation can't COUNTER-BRIBE CONCORD to do their goddamn job?
For instance, a 5-person merc corp can wardec a 100-person mining corp for a piddling amount of ISK. Is it not reasonable that mining corp could offer CONCORD double to go back to work?
GENERAL, VAGUE, TOP-LEVEL MECHANICS
- Starting a war works exactly how it works now, except the offensive side chooses how much to bribe CONCORD for (starting at the current price as a minimum)
- The defending corp can pay 2x the current offensive cost incurred (over however long the war has run) to cancel the war
- A war cooldown timer is started. During that cooldown, the offending corp can re-declare war, at double the rate of the previous war declaration. The timer gets longer the higher the multiplier is.
- This could go back and forth until one side chooses not to pay, offers surrender, or if the offensive corp doesn't renew the war during its cooldown.
This kind of mechanic would do a few things:
- Force corps to wardec "reasonable" targets
- Change wardecs to being a more dynamic war with military, fiscal, and time management considerations
- Give "defender" corps multiple options for ending a war, including offering surrender fees if the CONCORD bribes become too expensive.
- Prevent corps from deccing dozens or hundreds of entities it has no real interest in engaging.
- Give a real reason for surrendering, in that the costs associated with surrender will eventually pale in comparison to CONCORD bribes.
You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12936
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 17:31:02 -
[2] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:But if this were true, why is it that a pirate corporation can pay 50 million ISK to bribe CONCRD, but the defending (and high security standings) industrial corporation can't COUNTER-BRIBE CONCORD to do their goddamn job?
Because then it's not non consensual PvP at all.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
216
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 18:25:31 -
[3] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Chance Ravinne wrote:But if this were true, why is it that a pirate corporation can pay 50 million ISK to bribe CONCRD, but the defending (and high security standings) industrial corporation can't COUNTER-BRIBE CONCORD to do their goddamn job? Because then it's not non consensual PvP at all.
It is fiscal PvP, or the threat of it. It is also a bargaining chip.
You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12938
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 19:35:05 -
[4] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Chance Ravinne wrote:But if this were true, why is it that a pirate corporation can pay 50 million ISK to bribe CONCRD, but the defending (and high security standings) industrial corporation can't COUNTER-BRIBE CONCORD to do their goddamn job? Because then it's not non consensual PvP at all. It is fiscal PvP, or the threat of it. It is also a bargaining chip.
You can already PvP in the market.
But an outright isk shield? I would think that rather unfriendly to new players, especially new players who are interested in piracy.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Zepheros Naeonis
TinklePee
34
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 19:40:13 -
[5] - Quote
I agree that Wardecs need to be revamped, but I'm not sure an isk war is the way to do it. |
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3352
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 20:13:55 -
[6] - Quote
Well, it'd be nice to never, ever have to worry about a wardec again.
Wait, no. If you want wardecs removed, which is what this suggestion actually is, then why the hell are you on the CSM?
You cannot remove PVP from a PVP game. Deal. With. It. |
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
216
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 20:16:22 -
[7] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Well, it'd be nice to never, ever have to worry about a wardec again.
Wait, no. If you want wardecs removed, which is what this suggestion actually is, then why the hell are you on the CSM?
You cannot remove PVP from a PVP game. Deal. With. It.
Your comment implies that any possible war target has infinitely more ISK and patience than you do.
If that were true, they could already laugh at your wardecs through funding infinite ships for you to blow up and dealing with infinite stress of your aggression.
You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3352
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 20:21:30 -
[8] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:Danika Princip wrote:Well, it'd be nice to never, ever have to worry about a wardec again.
Wait, no. If you want wardecs removed, which is what this suggestion actually is, then why the hell are you on the CSM?
You cannot remove PVP from a PVP game. Deal. With. It. Your comment implies that any possible war target has infinitely more ISK and patience than you do. If that were true, they could already laugh at your wardecs through funding infinite ships for you to blow up and dealing with infinite stress of your aggression.
No, we have more ISK and patience than any possible war target, and are therefore going to be totally and utterly immune to wardecs, which we shouldn't be. (Seriously, look at my corp.)
A highsec industry corp with anyone remotely capable of market trading is going to be able to throw up more money to block decs than anyone short of marmite and the other big wardec groups is going to be able to counter, thus buying themselves immunity to any casual wardec, which is bad.
Can you explain why ANYONE should be immune to wardecs? And yes, buying immunity to decs does count. |
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra Gallente Federation
196
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 20:21:34 -
[9] - Quote
multi line bad idea ahead
corp declares war, bribes concord.
defender counterbribes, concord wavers, sets up conflict beacon in ( wherever, outside of station with corp offices, random .5/.6 system, etc).
Corps use entosis on conflict beacon, t1 only. all on grid with beacon are fair game, aggressors must have at least a quarter of the defenders forces ( 5 aggressors can counter 19 defenders).
War continues as long as aggressors have the beacon, or if it goes uncontested. If contested for the full entosis cycle, war is suspended. If the defenders successfully defend for over half of the wardec period, war is over early, OR wardec can not be extended.
Gives defenders a reason to undock, and agressors someone to shoot if the defenders try to man up.
Also partially limits the ratio of aggressors to defenders. Still possible even if the aggressors are much less numerous, unless the defenders get their **** together.
no help for wars between groups of similar size.
end of bad idea
You are content to be content. This is not a jedi mind trick, its just a game
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2054
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 20:25:22 -
[10] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:You can already PvP in the market.
But an outright isk shield? I would think that rather unfriendly to new players, especially new players who are interested in piracy. These arguments cut both ways. You can already PvP in lowsec/nullsec/wormholes. Wardecs are unfriendly to new players.
I think wardecs need an overhaul but I don't like the solution in the OP because there is not enough player interaction involved. I would prefer a more creative solution. Perhaps doubling the wardec fee should set the aggressor corp suspect for the duration of the dec. This wouldn't be a direct shield but would add risk for the wardec corp and provide opportunities for interaction.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
|
Atomeon
The Scope Gallente Federation
33
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 21:14:54 -
[11] - Quote
The general idea of OP is correct, you should be able to have a counter option. Maybe Concord is too much for some ppl (but i like the idea).
One Counter Option is pay double the Faction police to set the as Criminal suspect, so faction police are after them, for the duration of the war. Not ALL 4 faction police will "treat with love" those ones, but only the one you have at its space your HeadQuarters. So if you have Dodixie as HQ the Gallente navy will be after you.
A second option is set a mercenary corp (for example) at "Brothers/Sisters in War" Status (at 1 specific war, not all) and they can assist you with a given war. Of course you should pay the merc a fixed price. This option could be abused as the Merc Corp can wardec with alts and "offer help" with main Corp. Maybe the payment price comes as a % from kills they made. Merc Corp killed 2 cruisers, 5 frigates till the end of war and they get paid 25% of they value (ship +fit ). |
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
216
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 21:37:57 -
[12] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Chance Ravinne wrote:Danika Princip wrote:Well, it'd be nice to never, ever have to worry about a wardec again.
Wait, no. If you want wardecs removed, which is what this suggestion actually is, then why the hell are you on the CSM?
You cannot remove PVP from a PVP game. Deal. With. It. Your comment implies that any possible war target has infinitely more ISK and patience than you do. If that were true, they could already laugh at your wardecs through funding infinite ships for you to blow up and dealing with infinite stress of your aggression. No, we have more ISK and patience than any possible war target, and are therefore going to be totally and utterly immune to wardecs, which we shouldn't be. (Seriously, look at my corp.) A highsec industry corp with anyone remotely capable of market trading is going to be able to throw up more money to block decs than anyone short of marmite and the other big wardec groups is going to be able to counter, thus buying themselves immunity to any casual wardec, which is bad. Can you explain why ANYONE should be immune to wardecs? And yes, buying immunity to decs does count.
By your logic you are already immune to wardecs because the losses incurred on your ships are a drop in the bucket compared to your cash reserves.
I personally have a great deal of ISK and therefore my losses to war targets don't affect me in a significant personal way. You could say that I am personally IMMUNE TO WARDECS. I also live in w-space so I guess I am DOUBLE IMMUNE to wardecs!
However it also means I could literally wardec 100 corporations tomorrow for no reason. That is ridiculous and shows how stupid the system is. It doesn't make logical sense, in-game/lore sense, and it is hugely tilted in favor of the aggressor, even though the war is meant to be "mutual" in some sense.
You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12939
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 22:12:32 -
[13] - Quote
Zappity wrote: These arguments cut both ways. You can already PvP in lowsec/nullsec/wormholes. Wardecs are unfriendly to new players.
And do wardecs need to be more, or less accessible to new players? Conflict in general needs to be more accessible in highsec as a general rule.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2058
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 22:17:18 -
[14] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Zappity wrote: These arguments cut both ways. You can already PvP in lowsec/nullsec/wormholes. Wardecs are unfriendly to new players.
And do wardecs need to be more, or less accessible to new players? Conflict in general needs to be more accessible in highsec as a general rule. I agree. That is why I like the idea of more flashy yellow pilots in highsec.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1171
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 22:42:15 -
[15] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:You can already PvP in the market.
But an outright isk shield? I would think that rather unfriendly to new players, especially new players who are interested in piracy. These arguments cut both ways. You can already PvP in lowsec/nullsec/wormholes. Wardecs are unfriendly to new players. I think wardecs need an overhaul but I don't like the solution in the OP because there is not enough player interaction involved. I would prefer a more creative solution. Perhaps doubling the wardec fee should set the aggressor corp suspect for the duration of the dec. This wouldn't be a direct shield but would add risk for the wardec corp and provide opportunities for interaction.
This would be awesome, but won't fly. Too many risk averse people would get shot. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12940
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 23:10:45 -
[16] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Zappity wrote: These arguments cut both ways. You can already PvP in lowsec/nullsec/wormholes. Wardecs are unfriendly to new players.
And do wardecs need to be more, or less accessible to new players? Conflict in general needs to be more accessible in highsec as a general rule. I agree. That is why I like the idea of more flashy yellow pilots in highsec.
If you want to encourage and proliferate conflict, handicapping the aggressor is not how you do it. That's typically the kind of thing you ask for if you want conflict actively discouraged.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
78
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 02:27:36 -
[17] - Quote
NIce thought Chance, but I'd rather see a fox that makes any neutral assisting ships become war targets for all wardecs the assistance recipient has for the total duration of all outstanding wardecs. Bye bye neutral RR's and Boosts. |
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
217
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 02:42:35 -
[18] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:NIce thought Chance, but I'd rather see a fox that makes any neutral assisting ships become war targets for all wardecs the assistance recipient has for the total duration of all outstanding wardecs. Bye bye neutral RR's and Boosts.
That would be beautiful.
You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
358
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 08:02:04 -
[19] - Quote
Here is a proposal I made a while ago https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5539135
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
Sable Moran
Moran Light Industries
435
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 12:37:21 -
[20] - Quote
Gave you a like, not because this is a fantastic idea that fixes wardecs for centuries to come but because pretty much anything would be better than the current system and that it's nice to see a CSM actively trying to do something about it.
Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Labs Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene.
|
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1144
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 13:07:51 -
[21] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Zappity wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Zappity wrote: These arguments cut both ways. You can already PvP in lowsec/nullsec/wormholes. Wardecs are unfriendly to new players.
And do wardecs need to be more, or less accessible to new players? Conflict in general needs to be more accessible in highsec as a general rule. I agree. That is why I like the idea of more flashy yellow pilots in highsec. If you want to encourage and proliferate conflict, handicapping the aggressor is not how you do it. That's typically the kind of thing you ask for if you want conflict actively discouraged.
Agreed, handicapping either side will simply put that side off engaging. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1144
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 13:20:38 -
[22] - Quote
The main problem with wardecs is that they are currently used to try to force those who do not want PvP to engage in it. People should not be surprised when those corps simply choose not to fight. The second issue is that the wardec corp is usually bringing much more firepower than the small newer corps can counter, therefore they dock up or roll corp to avoid being a staked out goat.
Wardecs need a complete overhaul. They are by nature a limited engagement between two entities. This is allowed by CONCORD as a necessity to keep capsuleers happy and not causing too much trouble. As such there needs to be some mechanism whereby CONCORD will only ignore relatively like sized or capable corps to wardec each other. Some kind of combat and industry indexes along with corp size determining wardec cost so that CONCORDignore it. A huge corp attacking a tiny one would be very hard to justify ignoring. Likewise for a small bunch of combat brutes attacking a small group of miners. However a small group of combat brutes taking on 100 indy players? The public would probably pay to watch in New Eden!
My point is that the defenders must feel they have a chance to fight back or they simply won't. This cannot be achieved by forcing them into it either, it has to be a valid choice. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12945
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 14:05:03 -
[23] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:The main problem with wardecs is that they are currently used to try to force those who do not want PvP to engage in it.
That's not a problem, that is their purpose, non consensual PvP. If people don't want to engage in PvP via wars, they belong in NPC corps.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Mag's
the united
19396
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 14:17:14 -
[24] - Quote
Terrible idea in the OP and it has Malcanis Law through it's heart. Plus why would people do this, when the option to simply drop a corp and form another still exists? So those with the knowledge to avoid decs on the cheap still do and the new guys pay over the odds.
At least these posts highlight the intent of certain CSM members and their thought processes.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1145
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 17:21:27 -
[25] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:The main problem with wardecs is that they are currently used to try to force those who do not want PvP to engage in it.
That's not a problem, that is their purpose, non consensual PvP. If people don't want to engage in PvP via wars, they belong in NPC corps.
It is a problem when you try to force people into it. Players need to engage in it not be forced. This isn't me being pedantic, if players do not want to do something they will find a way to avoid it even if that means unsub and play something else. I would rather make being in a player corp give better benefits and therefore better incentive to fight. Tie the incentives to the corp structures to make that unavoidable and those willing to fight will start to do so. They need an incentive to do so though. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12950
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 17:28:17 -
[26] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: It is a problem when you try to force people into it.
No, it's not. That's what non consensual PvP means, it means "ready or not, here I come!".
The game is built on the principle of non consensual PvP.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1007
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 17:59:11 -
[27] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:GENERAL, VAGUE, TOP-LEVEL MECHANICS
- Starting a war works exactly how it works now, except the offensive side chooses how much to bribe CONCORD for (starting at the current price as a minimum)
- The defending corp can pay 2x the current offensive cost incurred (over however long the war has run) to cancel the war
- A war cooldown timer is started. During that cooldown, the offending corp can re-declare war, at double the rate of the previous war declaration. The timer gets longer the higher the multiplier is.
- This could go back and forth until one side chooses not to pay, offers surrender, or if the offensive corp doesn't renew the war during its cooldown.
This is a terrible idea. Why should rich and established players be made immune to the wardecs that now the poorer and newer corporations will be now forced to suffer? ISK tanking proposal like these mean that wardeccers will just be directed to go after newer and smaller (that is poorer) corps, the exact opposite of what we should be encouraging and what your proposal probably is trying to encourage.
Proposals like this which punish the aggressors with increased costs has led to mercenaries forming ever-larger wardeccing alliances to save on fees (Forsaken - Marmites anyone?), further exacerbating the discrepancy between the military strength of corps in wardecs. If anything, wardec fees should be lowered, at least for small, non-mercenary corps, so they can actually use the mechanic to settle scores with other small corps and get used to the idea of PvP in a controlled environment as wardecs were initially intended.
But really, unless the drop-reform hole is plugged in some way (as Mag's said above), the point is moot as no (smallish) corp will pay as they can dodge the war for just the million ISK corporation fee rather than 100M ISK to counter-bribe CONCORD.
I think your heart is in the right place (at least I hope it is), but this is just a terrible suggestion which will do nothing to make wardecs more engaging, meaningful or fun. It would just allow players to isolate themselves further from the sandbox , the exact opposite of the direction CCP claims to want to take the game. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12953
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 18:11:09 -
[28] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote: Proposals like this which punish the aggressors with increased costs has led to mercenaries forming ever-larger wardeccing alliances to save on fees (Forsaken - Marmites anyone?), further exacerbating the discrepancy between the military strength of corps in wardecs.
Bingo. Every time the carebears cry enough to get CCP to tighten the handcuffs on player freedom because they can't be asked to play the game, it makes the game worse for everyone.
The various restrictions on player freedom in highsec need to be lessened or outright removed.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
49
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 18:12:20 -
[29] - Quote
The little corps would still get screwed by not having the bank roll to keep making counter bribes. Meaning they'd be pissing money away to no avail, which is actually worse than the current system. Right now they can stay docked and lose nothing. But the newer corps may actually try to pay to stop the dec and find themselves worse off. Not to mention I'd assume once the timer has worn off and the defender won the bid war it would create a timer in which that aggressing corp would be unable to start a new dec against them fro a short time. Which means hello alt corps time to continue the harassment.
I'd suggest something similar to what you put forth that would actually be really good and much more fair to the smaller entity.
War decs paid out based number of individuals within corp/alliance being ignored or defended by concord. -Decking as a small corp would be relatively inexpensive as your paying concord off to ignore a small number of people and vice versa. -Bribing concord to protect your small corp would be relatively cheaper because they are having to give extra care to fewer people, again vice versa.
Bribe concord to protect you from wars for normal war dec duration. -Entity A is willing to pay x amount per player within their corp/alliance to stall war decs from any other entity for say... 2 weeks. -Entity B,C,D must pay a combined x per player to remove this protection, then the new standard fee z for creating the war dec. -Entity A must now pay z to nullify the wardec and the cycle continues.
The newer corps would still would get screwed due to bank roll in the long run. But to keep war deccing a small corp or alliance would cost the larger one many times more in the bid/counter bid process due to it being based on member count of the bidding corp. However, I like the idea of a buy-out feature for the smaller new player corps. As long as the initial compounding penalties hit the aggressor first, then the "defender" then it seems balanced. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
952
|
Posted - 2015.05.11 01:54:15 -
[30] - Quote
I agree that war decs are not in an optimal place right now, but they are a necessary evil.* Your proposal does little to mitigate the bad aspects of the current system while adding a whole host of new concerns and abuses.
* - So long as Concord exists, you have to have some kind of war dec system. I'd be inclined to remove Concord and replace it with a far harsher security loss policy, with losing the ability to dock, cloak, anchor structures, enter POS shields, enter High Sec through gates, accept ISK transfers, place buy/sell orders, contracts, etc. coming relatively quickly as the consequences of aggression. That, and going flashy red at a relatively low number (-1.0), so that players provide violent consequences, not NPC's. We have that safety to protect new players from most mistakes that might trigger consequences. Add to that a restriction on NPC corp players initiating HS aggression. Then make it so that setting the trigger red makes you a target for anyone in HS space.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |