Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Reaver Lupus
Grey Reavers
2
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 04:56:59 -
[31] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:TL;DR Bait Ship? Bait ship. Which show in overview as something they aren't, and the ability to bait without risking the modules used for bait. Oh, and BS level DPS and tank.
Having Battlecruiser DPS and battleship level or higher tank seems more realistic to how these were designed. Medium turret slots would allow them to fight back fairly effectively against anything below a battleship, while the tank might allow them to survive battles for long enough to receive reinforcements or escape. |
Deep Nine
State War Academy Caldari State
323
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 04:57:09 -
[32] - Quote
I could see this ship class having the same skin as the current industrial ships but having 5 high slots, 4 medium slots, and 3 low slots, coupled with the CPU and Powergrid to accommodate a full arsenal of weaponry and defenses, but with reasonable cargo hold that isen't too extensive as to obsolete the original industrials purpose. Designed for providing its own escort for transporting cargo, this would be nice for low and null sec. It would even be useful for traps against everything from ganking to piracy.
Interesting concept. But they will never sign off on it because of all the butthurt alts of every goon and ganker troll that this forum is overflowing with pushing their mediocre agenda with sub-intellectual banter meant to confuse, dismay, and anger.
Keep pushing. You might get lucky. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
690
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 05:08:15 -
[33] - Quote
Deep Nine wrote:I could see this ship class having the same skin as the current industrial ships but having 5 high slots, 4 medium slots, and 3 low slots, coupled with the CPU and Powergrid to accommodate a full arsenal of weaponry and defenses, but with reasonable cargo hold that isen't too extensive as to obsolete the original industrials purpose. Designed for providing its own escort for transporting cargo, this would be nice for low and null sec. It would even be useful for traps against everything from ganking to piracy. Interesting concept. But they will never sign off on it because of all the butthurt alts of every goon and ganker troll that this forum is overflowing with pushing their mediocre agenda with sub-intellectual banter meant to confuse, dismay, and anger. Keep pushing. You might get lucky.
Skin, sure. Same name on overview? Never. False cargo scan? Never. I'm not against Q-ships entirely, just against a hilariously exploitable version which beats most cruisers in combat capability while looking like a defenseless t1 hauler. A second line of DSTs with some teeth would be great fun, and amusing as all get out to watch people try to gank or catch in low/null.
Quote: Having Battlecruiser DPS and battleship level or higher tank seems more realistic to how these were designed. Medium turret slots would allow them to fight back fairly effectively against anything below a battleship, while the tank might allow them to survive battles for long enough to receive reinforcements or escape.
So, no to having both while carrying cargo. If you want BS level tank, you already can do so with a DST, some of which can briefly exceed supercapital EHP. The big issues are having significant DPS, and any sort of "IFF" or other auto-magic trickery which lets you bait perfectly without effort.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Reaver Lupus
Grey Reavers
2
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 05:16:39 -
[34] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:[quote=Deep Nine] So, no to having both while carrying cargo. If you want BS level tank, you already can do so with a DST, some of which can briefly exceed supercapital EHP. The big issues are having significant DPS, and any sort of "IFF" or other auto-magic trickery which lets you bait perfectly without effort. Its not exactly magic. There was a war game not too long ago where a british ship gained the upper hand against the American forces by pretending to be a Pakistani cruise liner and responding to hails in Urdu before opening fire with a surprise attack when they were in missile range. Do you really think that people wouldnt come up with ways to fool the enemy's friend or foe classification or ship identification systems just because this is in space? |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
690
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 05:24:17 -
[35] - Quote
Reaver Lupus wrote:James Baboli wrote:[quote=Deep Nine] So, no to having both while carrying cargo. If you want BS level tank, you already can do so with a DST, some of which can briefly exceed supercapital EHP. The big issues are having significant DPS, and any sort of "IFF" or other auto-magic trickery which lets you bait perfectly without effort. Its not exactly magic. There was a war game not too long ago where a british ship gained the upper hand against the American forces by pretending to be a Pakistani cruise liner and responding to hails in Urdu before opening fire with a surprise attack when they were in missile range. Do you really think that people wouldnt come up with ways to fool the enemy's friend or foe classification or ship identification systems just because this is in space? I think that any such ability is gamebreaking and thus should not be added to a GAME. Considering that there are also 4 different entire classes of sensors in use, it might be just a tad harder in eve than in real life. Very hard to hide something like the magnetic containment system for blasters from magnometric scanners, the lasing arrays for lasers from gravitics and the thinner plating from ladar and radar if they aren't absolute crap.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out
8033
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 05:33:09 -
[36] - Quote
Reaver Lupus wrote:Tuttomenui II wrote:Wrong forum.
Just battle fit your hulk or venture like everyone else. I actually don't even fly industrial most of the time. Sooooo... why are we taking you seriously then?
Reaver Lupus wrote:And you have to admit that those fits arent nearly as effective as dedicated battleships or battlecruisers.
...
The entire point of this is one that can hold its own in a fight and even come out on top if the odds aren't too stacked against it
Q-Ships historically were NEVER as effective as dedicated combat ships. In fact... the only reason they scored the limited victories they did was due almost entirely due to surprise... NOT combat ability.
And unlike real life, in EVE it is most cost effective to just blow up a ship rather than trying to capture it. Because players are spiteful like that (both ways).
Ignoring all this though...
if industrial ships had the same combat ability as normal, dedicated combat ships... why would you fly anything but an industrial ship?
I personally would LOVE the extra cargo room for storing and using extra cap boosters and loot.
How did you Veterans start?
The Skillpoint System and You
|
Reaver Lupus
Grey Reavers
2
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 05:39:11 -
[37] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:
Ignoring all this though...
if industrial ships had the same combat ability as normal, dedicated combat ships... why would you fly anything but an industrial ship?
I personally would LOVE the extra cargo room for storing and using extra cap boosters and loot.
They wouldn't have the same combat ability. Difficulty with maneuvering would limit them to the role of responding to attack rather than initiating engagement, and cargo room would be sacrificed for combat ability and the ability to pretend to be a harmless freighter when its actually anything but. This ship might find other uses when inventive players started experimenting with it, but it would be designed for a niche role of inviting attack by gankers in order to turn the tables when they find that they may have bitten off more than they can chew. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
690
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 06:37:31 -
[38] - Quote
Reaver Lupus wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:
Ignoring all this though...
if industrial ships had the same combat ability as normal, dedicated combat ships... why would you fly anything but an industrial ship?
I personally would LOVE the extra cargo room for storing and using extra cap boosters and loot.
They wouldn't have the same combat ability. Difficulty with maneuvering would limit them to the role of responding to attack rather than initiating engagement, and cargo room would be sacrificed for combat ability and the ability to pretend to be a harmless freighter when its actually anything but. This ship might find other uses when inventive players started experimenting with it, but it would be designed for a niche role of inviting attack by gankers in order to turn the tables when they find that they may have bitten off more than they can chew. So perfect bait ship, ability to fit a cyno and plenty of space for cap boosters to absolutely bait tank the heck out of it with hull and ASBs, plus guns to get on the KM with. This idea doesn't just invite abuse, it strolls up to abuse, fondles the genitalia and lick's abuse's ear before slipping abuse a business card.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
355
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 10:20:04 -
[39] - Quote
So basically a battle badger.
Shows up on dscan and overview as a badger. check Can fit some tank and have lots of cap charges. check. Can fit a gun and get on a killmail. Check!
So no need for a new ship class. Unless what you really want is a IWINSHIP which is what it sounds like.
This idea gets -1, no points awarded, may god have mercy on your soul.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Malcolm Malicious
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
67
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 10:58:45 -
[40] - Quote
What about a holographic emitter that takes up a high slot and disguises with a random corresponding industrial ship size or up. For example a hurricane disguised as a mammoth or an armageddon masked as a providence. The holo emitter would deactivate upon engaging A target. It Could have Similar fitting and draw backs to cloaking devices. |
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
693
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 14:14:15 -
[41] - Quote
Malcolm Malicious wrote:What about a holographic emitter that takes up a high slot and disguises with a random corresponding industrial ship size or up. For example a hurricane disguised as a mammoth or an armageddon masked as a providence. The holo emitter would deactivate upon engaging A target. It Could have Similar fitting and draw backs to cloaking devices.
Also proposed and shot down often enough to usually be instantly rule 17'd, for similar reasons that this whole thread is getting shot down by the regulars in F&ID.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Deep Nine
State War Academy Caldari State
323
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 14:22:19 -
[42] - Quote
Malcolm Malicious wrote:What about a holographic emitter that takes up a high slot and disguises with a random corresponding industrial ship size or up. For example a hurricane disguised as a mammoth or an armageddon masked as a providence. The holo emitter would deactivate upon engaging A target. It Could have Similar fitting and draw backs to cloaking devices.
This, but it feigns the name of the "Galleon" or "Indiaman" to display Mammoth or Wreathe so that attackers cannot tell the difference, mistaking it for a helpless hauler.
Quote:Skin, sure. Same name on overview? Never. False cargo scan? Never. I'm not against Q-ships entirely, just against a hilariously exploitable version which beats most cruisers in combat capability while looking like a defenseless t1 hauler. A second line of DSTs with some teeth would be great fun, and amusing as all get out to watch people try to gank or catch in low/null.
Yes, same name on overview, definitely, but done via the holographic imager suggested. False cargo scan, no, of course not. It isen' hilariously exploitable, but rather, covert and sensible. No one said it should be able to beat a cruiser, but that is what beta-testing is for. I agree, it would be great fun along with being extremely useful. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
693
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 15:01:57 -
[43] - Quote
Deep Nine wrote: Yes, same name on overview, definitely, but done via the holographic imager suggested. False cargo scan, no, of course not. It isen' hilariously exploitable, but rather, covert and sensible. No one said it should be able to beat a cruiser, but that is what beta-testing is for. I agree, it would be great fun along with being extremely useful.
Okay, and now how do we balance the a module like this?
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Deep Nine
State War Academy Caldari State
323
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 15:41:51 -
[44] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Deep Nine wrote: Yes, same name on overview, definitely, but done via the holographic imager suggested. False cargo scan, no, of course not. It isen' hilariously exploitable, but rather, covert and sensible. No one said it should be able to beat a cruiser, but that is what beta-testing is for. I agree, it would be great fun along with being extremely useful.
Okay, and now how do we balance the a module like this?
Balance it in what manner?
Do you mean making sure it is not used on other ships? The CPU and Powergrid? The slot it would be placed in? Or otherwise?
Please specify and I will attempt to clarify. |
Reaver Lupus
Grey Reavers
4
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 17:13:40 -
[45] - Quote
I'm really not seeing the huge potential for exploitation that you guys are either. False cargo scans might be pushing things too far, but really this entire concept would just revolve around giving gankers a surprise and a difficult fight more often, potentially stopping some suicide ganks outright or reducing trade losses in the majority of circumstances. The only people who should really be mad about this are those gankers who realize that they have it absurdly easy now and don't want the system to change. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
694
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 17:30:15 -
[46] - Quote
Reaver Lupus wrote:I'm really not seeing the huge potential for exploitation that you guys are either. False cargo scans might be pushing things too far, but really this entire concept would just revolve around giving gankers a surprise and a difficult fight more often, potentially stopping some suicide ganks outright or reducing trade losses in the majority of circumstances. The only people who should really be mad about this are those gankers who realize that they have it absurdly easy now and don't want the system to change. Then trust us. What you have described is already a very powerful thing in the shape of a battlebadger and a battle badger is much toned down from what you are asking for.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
The Boogieman
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 18:40:10 -
[47] - Quote
Quote:Then trust us. What you have described is already a very powerful thing in the shape of a battlebadger and a battle badger is much toned down from what you are asking for.
>>Trust, eve, pick one. >>Trust me, I don't have an agenda. >>Trust me, don't argue. >>Trust me, Your idea shouldn't be allowed. >>Trust me, I argue because I care. >>Trust me, I'm not a ganker this character proves it.
Stop being silly, just trust him, he's obviously helping you work this problem out. |
The Boogieman
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 18:44:53 -
[48] - Quote
Zura Namee wrote:So what you're saying is that you want a bastion-mode Marauder with an industrial skin so you can die to slightly more ganking dessies once you realize you can't escape?
>>Completely suggest something no one was talking about. >>Insinuate radical insane idea. >>Inject fear. >>Become incoherent to derail thread. >>Argue with me dumby, I'm ridiculous. |
The Boogieman
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
18
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 18:55:48 -
[49] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Reaver Lupus wrote:Tuttomenui II wrote:Wrong forum.
Just battle fit your hulk or venture like everyone else. I actually don't even fly industrial most of the time. Sooooo... why are we taking you seriously then? Reaver Lupus wrote:And you have to admit that those fits arent nearly as effective as dedicated battleships or battlecruisers. ...The entire point of this is one that can hold its own in a fight and even come out on top if the odds aren't too stacked against it
Q-Ships historically were NEVER as effective as dedicated combat ships. In fact... the only reason they scored the limited victories they did was due almost entirely due to surprise... NOT combat ability. And unlike real life, in EVE it is most cost effective to just blow up a ship rather than trying to capture it. Because players are spiteful like that (both ways). Ignoring all this though... if industrial ships had the same combat ability as normal, dedicated combat ships... why would you fly anything but an industrial ship? I personally would LOVE the extra cargo room for storing and using extra cap boosters and loot.
>>Lie. >>Feed misinformation. >>Contradict yourself. >>Lie again. >>Project Hypocrisy. >>Attempt to derail by changing the subject. >>Totally defeat the purpose of my post. >>Agree that its a good idea. >>Suggest nothing of value.
This guy gets it, you should listen to him. |
Reaver Lupus
Grey Reavers
14
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 21:17:27 -
[50] - Quote
The battle badger really isn't nearly capable enough to serve in this role. A nicely fitted destroyer could take one down. Anything larger just puts their pilots out a bit more isk when they go "pop". |
|
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1713
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 22:20:08 -
[51] - Quote
Hint: DST with Cyno field. Its more effective anyways. You're welcome.
Also, we already have procurer and nereus fleets. Do we really need more?
Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2453
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 23:28:58 -
[52] - Quote
As you've already heard from others by now, Q-ships are a common suggestion that is generally not met with much approval. Most supporters are pretty new to the game. There are a lot of flaws in the concept that become more apparent as you learn to understand the intricate social mechanics of combat in EVE Online. In short, it's too easy a cover and unfairly changes other players' overview to suit the needs of a specific group. It's an overpowered ship design.
I am in favor of combat industrials--they could sacrifice some carrying capacity in order to have combat capabilities not too far short of cruisers. I see two good reasons to fly a ship like that: 1.) when flying through dangerous space and you want to defend yourself 2.) have a few of these in a larger fleet to carry supplies such as ammo--they can engage in combat also
If these have cruiser tank but less than cruiser offense, it'll lessen the chances opposing fleet members will try to shoot these, which will assist in their ability to protect the cargo that is useful to sustained fleet operation.
A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
|
Christopher Mabata
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
321
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 23:53:20 -
[53] - Quote
Why bother putting weapons on a freighter when you can just use a scout instead? Because people want easy mode, right
#USA #PODSQUAD #Waitthisisn'ttwitterthenewlookconfusedme
|
The Boogieman
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
30
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 02:11:27 -
[54] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:As you've already heard from others by now, Q-ships are a common suggestion that is generally not met with much approval. Most supporters are pretty new to the game. There are a lot of flaws in the concept that become more apparent as you learn to understand the intricate social mechanics of combat in EVE Online. In short, it's too easy a cover and unfairly changes other players' overview to suit the needs of a specific group. It's an overpowered ship design.
I am in favor of combat industrials--they could sacrifice some carrying capacity in order to have combat capabilities not too far short of cruisers. I see two good reasons to fly a ship like that: 1.) when flying through dangerous space and you want to defend yourself 2.) have a few of these in a larger fleet to carry supplies such as ammo--they can engage in combat also
If these have cruiser tank but less than cruiser offense, it'll lessen the chances opposing fleet members will try to shoot these, which will assist in their ability to protect the cargo that is useful to sustained fleet operation.
>>Insult the forum >>Say its flawed, don't explain why. >>Keep it vague. >>Use terms I don't understand. >>Intricate social mechanics of combat. >>EVES unfair, dries tears, ganks someone. >>Overpowered industrial transport. >>Totally in favor or combat industrials. >>Steal someone elses idea. >>Repeat someone elses uses. >>Fleet members wont shoot industrials.
How did you figure out how to undock? |
Reaver Lupus
Grey Reavers
14
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 06:04:04 -
[55] - Quote
Christopher Mabata wrote:Why bother putting weapons on a freighter when you can just use a scout instead? Because people want easy mode, right Because this isn't a freighter. It's a specialized combat ship that pretends to be a freighter. I'd say it's the gankers who want easy mode. |
Iain Cariaba
1367
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 12:25:07 -
[56] - Quote
Suggested ship is completely unnecessary, because the only change this ship will bring about is how many catas the gankers bring to kill you.
They will figure out how many it will take to kill it, and then that will be the new number to bring to a gank.
The end result is still the loss of your ship/cargo, and the gankers still end up getting concorded if in highsec.
Reaver Lupus wrote:Christopher Mabata wrote:Why bother putting weapons on a freighter when you can just use a scout instead? Because people want easy mode, right Because this isn't a freighter. It's a specialized combat ship that pretends to be a freighter. I'd say it's the gankers who want easy mode. Your ship will make the gankers bring a couple more catas to each gank, then it will die like every other gank target.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
|
Christopher Mabata
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
321
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 16:35:24 -
[57] - Quote
Reaver Lupus wrote:Christopher Mabata wrote:Why bother putting weapons on a freighter when you can just use a scout instead? Because people want easy mode, right Because this isn't a freighter. It's a specialized combat ship that pretends to be a freighter. I'd say it's the gankers who want easy mode.
Heres the fundamental flaw that your not seeing and that i forgot to mention the first time around, this ship..... It will have a unique name
boom no more element of suprise or "SUPRISE IM NOT REALLY A FREIGHTER" people will just see the name and go, oh look the combat one, lets kill it to make a point And i doubt CCP will make it have the same name, and even if they did, show info would be a fantastic tool, oh it has highslots on a obby? must be the combat one!
plus the other fundamental flaw is if your ganked in highsec in one of these weapons wont make a difference unless you can eliminate several catalysts in a span of seconds, not to mention lock times and server tick delays, since most gankers overkill the targets anyhow.
In low sec theyll probably bring a logi that will overcome its DPS or just self tank the thing, and in null your twice as doomed with the addition of bubbles, bombs, and more.
see what im getting at? And besides i beleive it was CCP Falcon who explicitly said to use the tools provided by CCP rather than making it their job to protect your assets with new ships and nerf/buffs
#USA #PODSQUAD #Waitthisisn'ttwitterthenewlookconfusedme
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2397
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 17:04:39 -
[58] - Quote
I do think that combat industrial ships should be more of a thing. They got more viable in the industrial tiericide, but they aren't quite there yet.
Absolutely does not require new ships though, just tweaks to existing ones. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
697
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 18:25:14 -
[59] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:I do think that combat industrial ships should be more of a thing. They got more viable in the industrial tiericide, but they aren't quite there yet.
Absolutely does not require new ships though, just tweaks to existing ones. Though a second set of DST's or other transport ships designed as something more akin to fleet colliers ( hardpoints and so on for 3-4 small or med guns, medium tank compared to a cruiser and 2/3 the capacity of the t1 haulers for a starting point) which can pick off mediocre quality tackle but are obviously designed for hostile space and can be used more easily as on grid ammo ships, etc. would be really cool.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2456
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 23:16:24 -
[60] - Quote
The Boogieman wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:As you've already heard from others by now, Q-ships are a common suggestion that is generally not met with much approval. Most supporters are pretty new to the game. There are a lot of flaws in the concept that become more apparent as you learn to understand the intricate social mechanics of combat in EVE Online. In short, it's too easy a cover and unfairly changes other players' overview to suit the needs of a specific group. It's an overpowered ship design.
I am in favor of combat industrials--they could sacrifice some carrying capacity in order to have combat capabilities not too far short of cruisers. I see two good reasons to fly a ship like that: 1.) when flying through dangerous space and you want to defend yourself 2.) have a few of these in a larger fleet to carry supplies such as ammo--they can engage in combat also
If these have cruiser tank but less than cruiser offense, it'll lessen the chances opposing fleet members will try to shoot these, which will assist in their ability to protect the cargo that is useful to sustained fleet operation. >>Insult the forum >>Say its flawed, don't explain why. >>Keep it vague. >>Use terms I don't understand. >>Intricate social mechanics of combat. >>EVES unfair, dries tears, ganks someone. >>Overpowered industrial transport. >>Totally in favor or combat industrials. >>Steal someone elses idea. >>Repeat someone elses uses. >>Fleet members wont shoot industrials. How did you figure out how to undock? >>I didn't insult the forum, I stated an observation of mine. Please don't suggest that being new is a bad thing. >>I did explain why, in summary. It offers too strong a cover. Need me to elaborate? Then ask. >>I kept it short. >>I'm sorry you didn't understand the terms, really I am. Tell me what went over your head and I'll try to explain it in a less technical fashion. >>Couldn't think of a better way to explain it in as few words. >>I feel like I suggested EVE is actually fair, by saying the Q-ships idea is relatively unfair in comparison. >>?? >>I am in favor of combat industrials, should they be introduced in a way that doesn't imbalance other parts of the game. >>I didn't steal anyone else's idea. Lots of people have presented ideas for combat industrials, and I am one of the top providers here. >>Industrials providing the combat supply role is my original idea going back years, well before industrial tiericide and possibly all the way to the old forums. >>I don't understand the relevance of that last comment.
A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |