Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
16822
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 15:15:55 -
[31] - Quote
Kael Attrell wrote:Thanks to the smashing success of jump fatigue, Merch Industrial Consulting Services has developed similar additional mechanics for CCP to consider. We suggest:
- Fleet Warp Fatigue - Every time a fleet is fleet warped, every member of that fleet receives fatigue that prevents them from being fleet warped. This will drastically increase the requirements for individual player piloting skill.
- Ship Hull Fatigue - Every time you die in a ship, you should receive fatigue that prevents you from entering a ship of that hull type. This will drastically increase ship diversity.
- Market Fatigue - Every time you modify an order, you should receive fatigue that prevents you from modifying another order. This is actually a good idea.
Specifically regarding jump fatigue, our main interest will be in CCP's rationalization behind how a given change is intended to affect player behavior.
I actually like that last one.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Zverofaust
Origin. Black Legion.
150
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 15:27:47 -
[32] - Quote
1) "Who in CCP actually thought it was actually a good idea to use boredom and tedium as a balancing factor in a video game?"
2) "Why haven't they been fired?" |
Hendrink Collie
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
51
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 15:30:52 -
[33] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Kael Attrell wrote:Thanks to the smashing success of jump fatigue, Merch Industrial Consulting Services has developed similar additional mechanics for CCP to consider. We suggest:
- Fleet Warp Fatigue - Every time a fleet is fleet warped, every member of that fleet receives fatigue that prevents them from being fleet warped. This will drastically increase the requirements for individual player piloting skill.
- Ship Hull Fatigue - Every time you die in a ship, you should receive fatigue that prevents you from entering a ship of that hull type. This will drastically increase ship diversity.
- Market Fatigue - Every time you modify an order, you should receive fatigue that prevents you from modifying another order. This is actually a good idea.
Specifically regarding jump fatigue, our main interest will be in CCP's rationalization behind how a given change is intended to affect player behavior. I actually like that last one.
That's not a terrible idea... but then again, I don't think the best way to fix things is to add fatigue to them. Maybe just further extend the wait time of modifying a single item. Five minutes ( i think ? ) seems too short for a single item. |
Tappits
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
168
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 15:36:26 -
[34] - Quote
I am just going to say i am semi happy with the changes and yes its a pain to move but then moving something the size of a small town should be. |
Thalen Draganos
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 15:39:02 -
[35] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:There are two camps. First camp is the people who are against hot drop central where people would drop a dozen capitals to kill... A ratting drake. http://m.imgur.com/r/Eve/BVXTA That was 3 years ago in lowsec on a station. Why didn't the drake just dock?
Phoenix Jones wrote:The other is the group that believes thst capital gameplay is the only gameplay. Many in fact play eve solely to drop capitals on people (I mean that is their sole root in this game, they do nothing nor want to do nothing but drop capitals on everything and anything 24 hours a day 7 days a week across the entire universe). They argue that their gameplay and style of play has been destroyed because of fatigue and jump range changes. Those who do not adapt, fade away.
Phoenix Jones wrote:In other words, bat phone does not instantly mean super capital drop from across the universe anymore. Fights are more regionalized and bat phones equal more subcaps vs instant super drop. We do it all the time but within our own region due to the range nerf.
Phoenix Jones wrote:Not even a year ago, the main method of alliance hunting revolved around having an army sit on a Titan in a pos for 15 hours a day while a pair of guys warped around with a point and cyno. If they found something, point, light bulb. Does ccp want to return to this rootless gameplay? Do the players want to return to sitting on a Titans butt for 5 hours waiting for notice of "we found a drake?" "Did the players all say that this was fun??? Those were more than likely alts, sitting there while they play on other characters. No one would sit their only viable character on a titan for 15 hours unless they were doing something else. Attention spans are not that strong.
Phoenix Jones wrote:The cold wars are ending, the old regimes are dying, the troops are leaving. They want the cold wars back because... They had absolute control and owned everything. The cold wars have been over for a long time. Especially after the jump range/fatigue changes. The huge, news worthy, battles are over. They will never happen again. Thnx CCP. The only "regimes" that are dying or gone and forgotten are the ones that failed to adapt to the changes over the years. The troops are leaving? huh? Do you mean all of the alts that people used to be able to use? Why would those of us that survived the changes want things back the way they were? Deklein is a literal fortress thanks to CCP and we are actually using our space. I just had a few questions about your post and thought I would clarify some things for you. No pissy attitude implied |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
1238
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 15:40:45 -
[36] - Quote
Is CCP happy (or even aware) with how the changes altered Jump Bridge usage?
Would CCP consider changes that rightfully prevent eye-of-terror multi-region jump highways, but allow a return of in-region mobility (ie, like no fatigue for in-constellation bridge jumps, greatly reduced fatigue for jumps between neighbouring constellations, and slightly reduced fatigue for in-region between non-neighbouring constellations)? |
Lim Yoona
20
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 15:44:50 -
[37] - Quote
Q: I have long since sold all my capitals and capital pilots as they are not in a good place right now..is there a chance that we could ever get back closer to the way things were?
My feeling is that the problem before was archon blobs and supercap blobs crossing the map in minutes. Yeah that was a problem and screwed up the game. I feel like the fatigue approach was too heavy-handed in that it penalized ALL SHIPS WITH A JUMP DRIVE and not the blob.
I would suggest an alternative to the current system: the more caps in fleet = the more fatigue you accrue. Make it really really hard for a 250 archon blob to cross the map, kinda like the way it is now, but let a solo guy move himself fine.
Some would say: welp everybody would just move their cap blobs without being in fleet, but then think of the logistical nightmares of everyone needing their own cyno and not being able to coordinate and defend well against a trap or drop. Thanks for taking another look at this. |
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
155
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 15:46:41 -
[38] - Quote
Yroc Jannseen wrote:Why are we asking CCP questions. A question is a really strange way to share feedback or experiences, shouldn't the developers be asking US questions?
It's rather passive aggressive to have to warp an experience that demonstrates the negatives of jump fatigue, like a group finding it easier to self destruct a capital fleet, into a question.
"Do you think it's a good things that players have decided it's easier to self destruct capitals than move them?"
That ends up much more sarcastic sounding than it needs to be.
Oh hey, my training in parliamentary debate finally comes in handy:
"Would the honorable gentleman not agree that a mechanic which encourages self-destructing large assets rather than moving them is suboptimal?"
My own question: can you give us statistics about the use of black ops (jumps and bridges) in the month before fatigue and the month after? Are you happy with the effect fatigue had on their use? |
Mart Jorringer
Empyrean Warriors Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 15:47:18 -
[39] - Quote
Basil Vulpine wrote:In the run up to the round table are CCP able to release any stats so that we can potentially put our personal experiences in to context?
- How often have various fatigue thresholds been reached in each of the months split by ship type. - Number of jumps made split by ship type. - For cap fights above some meaningful threshold what was the fatigue min / mean / max fatigue of pilots on their final jump before combat. - For various fatigue thresholds, if the pilot stopped jumping after hitting that threshold how long was it before it logged in / undocked again?
There are likely other stats that would be useful which others will think of.
Two main statistics I'm interested in:
- Average amount of jumps per player (per month or week for example) before and after the change,
- Actual cap use before and after the change (maybe from killboard data or some other internal CCP source)
And a question:
would it be possible to maybe differentiate for fatigue timers between jumps to normal beacons and covert beacons? |
Hendrink Collie
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
51
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 15:47:25 -
[40] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Is CCP happy (or even aware) with how the changes altered Jump Bridge usage?
Would CCP consider changes that rightfully prevent eye-of-terror multi-region jump highways, but allow a return of in-region mobility (ie, like no fatigue for in-constellation bridge jumps, greatly reduced fatigue for jumps between neighbouring constellations, and slightly reduced fatigue for in-region between non-neighbouring constellations)?
That sounds pretty awesome; however, that sounds like a system that can be abused rather easily. I've got a couple fun ideas already.
|
|
Thirdsin
The Red Island Foundation Shadow Cartel
11
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 15:56:18 -
[41] - Quote
Generally these outreach efforts are a follow up. They are follow up to conversations and conclusions already reached by the internal audience (CCP/CSMs) and now validation of findings and discovery of areas of community push-back is done with the 'round table'.
So, if we could cut to the chase - What changes have already been tentatively announced by CCP or suggested by the CSMs?
Obviously wing and a prayer for an actual answer here since it seems every time a CSM talks about changes they start with "I'm under NDA, but my personal feeling is...".
Grabbing popcorn. |
John DuWitt
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 15:57:35 -
[42] - Quote
I would ideally like to see jump timer replaced with a reduced utility modifier. Ex: Instead of being forced 7 days to jump, you simply have a x% reduction in all damage, remote reps, self reps, nuet ability, etc). And limit it to a max of something reasonable like 50%. Let us keep jumping for fights. What would CCP think of something like this change? |
Dunk Dinkle
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
110
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 16:00:05 -
[43] - Quote
What is the expected logistices role of Carriers at this point?
These ships are literally named for their ability to carry and move other ships across space.
The jump changes appear to have greatly limited the usefulness of this ability. The trend appears to be more tilted toward the use of Jump Freighters to move all object.
The logistical difficulty of even moving carriers between regions is limited by chokepoints in certain areas and 10+ jump paths, is leading to greatly increased insurance fraud and moves that often simple leave capitals behind for the next inhabitants.
What is CCPs vision for how carriers are used & moved across New Eden? |
Ponder Stuff
Nocturnal Romance Cynosural Field Theory.
27
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 16:00:59 -
[44] - Quote
The affect that jump fatigue had on my playstyle was servere and although a lot of you dont agree with hotdropping as a passtime in eve, its no longer possible to play that way with the time i have available in an evening. Since my after work wind down (eve) has changed for the most part to other more time efficent games because of fatigue, I no longer really have the motivation to play at weekends as any action i get then may stop me playing at all for the next week if i do get the chance.
In the face of recent events, I would like to think that CCP values its vets and following the anouncement of this thread i am excited to see the playerbase respond with its suggestions and possibly even the chance to play eve again the way i love it. Taking much loved content from your bread and butter players with 4+ accounts is not a good buisness stratergy... if there are no players left, who will buy the skins your making all your money on right now? 30 day trial chars? i think not.
I like the idea of removing fatigue in exchance for an extended fixed jump drive cooldown period and ranges for dreads, supers and carriers to be extended back to its old value. This would alow the big TiDi entities to get to their fights within a reasonable timeframe and move ops to be less painful for smaller groups. It would also bring back more local hotdropping and blops with triage as it is know, loved and feared throught eve. With the recent removal of the need to fight for sov or indeed anything at all, I think that the jump changes are just another way of stopping fights happening. It was these huge super brawls that got eve in all the news and setting records dont forget! I also hate the lack of options available on jump routes now, not only has a move op to help a friend taken me almost 2 weeks i have to use systems now perma camped and set up to catch heavy assets.
I know were not desputing thera here, but with that WH acting as a instant free no fatigue titan bridge to almost anywhere in eve, any changes to titan bridge/jump range and the fatigue it generates is minimal as its no longer the fastest way of getting to a fight unless its at very close "intended" ranges.
|
Sugar Kyle
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1013
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 16:11:54 -
[45] - Quote
Thirdsin wrote:Generally these outreach efforts are a follow up. They are follow up to conversations and conclusions already reached by the internal audience (CCP/CSMs) and now validation of findings and discovery of areas of community push-back is done with the 'round table'.
So, if we could cut to the chase - What changes have already been tentatively announced by CCP or suggested by the CSMs?
Obviously wing and a prayer for an actual answer here since it seems every time a CSM talks about changes they start with "I'm under NDA, but my personal feeling is...".
Grabbing popcorn.
We're starting with player involvement so when we sit down at the summit we're working off of all of this instead of just our pieces. We can always shut it down and go and make decisons but I like it this way. We've already started so we might as well keep going.
Member of CSMX - CSM9 Weekly Updates
Member of CSM9
Low Sec Lifestyle - An Eve Blog
@Sugar_Kyle
|
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
955
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 16:15:18 -
[46] - Quote
If you ain't gonna listen to me the first time I'm not gonna tell you again.
Not today spaghetti.
|
Haidere
Evolution Northern Coalition.
8
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 16:17:57 -
[47] - Quote
Has CCP given any consideration to removing jump fatigue and merely having ~5 min reactivation timer? |
Rob Kaichin
Empire Assault Corp Dead Terrorists
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 16:19:30 -
[48] - Quote
I think it might be worth screening the questions to remove the deliberately agenda'd ones. Entering a question that submits the answer itself isn't going to do anything valuable, and will just waste CCP's time.
For my own questions:
The changes have seen a renaissance for the use of Capitals by low-sec groups in low-sec. Does CCP think this is a good thing?
If they plan to increase jump range, (with attendant impacts on low-sec), how do they plan to mitigate this?
Also, Sugar, you tease, sneaking this around :P. <3
|
metalravenous
Pyramid Celestial Darkeshi
88
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 16:20:35 -
[49] - Quote
Have consideration been made to make jumping a bit more unsafe? As it stands now you can undock, wait for session timer and then jump, this makes using a jump freighter between station systems virtually risk free save for an unlucky bump. This applies to other classes as well. A timer where a black ops fleet can't insta jump to a super tanked T3 would give time for a mining or ratting fleet time to respond to the cyno fleet. In both cases a timer would make really safe actions unsafe and make EVE a bit scarier and riskier.
|
Scott Ormands
The Desolate Order Brave Collective
54
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 16:21:30 -
[50] - Quote
Haidere wrote:Has CCP given any consideration to removing jump fatigue and merely having ~5 min reactivation timer?
Most capitals are already going to be on grid for 5 minutes anyways (siege or triage cycle) but something like 10 minutes would be a more balanced idea |
|
Sugar Kyle
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1013
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 16:21:48 -
[51] - Quote
Rob Kaichin wrote:I think it might be worth screening the questions to remove the deliberately agenda'd ones. Entering a question that submits the answer itself isn't going to do anything valuable, and will just waste CCP's time.
For my own questions:
The changes have seen a renaissance for the use of Capitals by low-sec groups in low-sec. Does CCP think this is a good thing?
If they plan to increase jump range, (with attendant impacts on low-sec), how do they plan to mitigate this?
Also, Sugar, you tease, sneaking this around :P. <3
We are making a master document of questions not just reading the forum posts one by one. It is not a single persons project which means all of our varied views will keep the topic at the top and not agendas... except for the agenda of looking at this mechanic.
Member of CSMX - CSMX Weekly Updates
Member of CSM9
Low Sec Lifestyle - An Eve Blog
@Sugar_Kyle
|
drunklies
Nocturnal Romance Cynosural Field Theory.
4
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 16:28:38 -
[52] - Quote
Sugar Kyle wrote:Rob Kaichin wrote:I think it might be worth screening the questions to remove the deliberately agenda'd ones. Entering a question that submits the answer itself isn't going to do anything valuable, and will just waste CCP's time.
For my own questions:
The changes have seen a renaissance for the use of Capitals by low-sec groups in low-sec. Does CCP think this is a good thing?
If they plan to increase jump range, (with attendant impacts on low-sec), how do they plan to mitigate this?
Also, Sugar, you tease, sneaking this around :P. <3
We are making a master document of questions not just reading the forum posts one by one. It is not a single persons project which means all of our varied views will keep the topic at the top and not agendas... except for the agenda of looking at this mechanic.
This is a great idea, but people can ask a valid question and propose a possible answer at the same time.
Will you also be trawling for potential mechanic's changes from this thread to supplement questions? |
Anthar Thebess
1260
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 16:33:52 -
[53] - Quote
1. Do you consider creating new smuggler gate connections, to remote regions like Paragon Soul , Omist , Outer Passage, Cobalt Edge, Branch , Deklein , Period Basis. At current jump range , those regions are to far for logistics to be contested by any one.
2. Do you think that is possible to introduce very expensive (price similar to carrier hull) capital rigs that will increase jump range. Yes this is only to bring back carrier ship hauling. You need to have 3-4 midpoints to move yourself in 1 region ( Stain).
3. If you consider reducing even more Jump Freighter range , will you also adjust map ( add few systems, move them a bit ) so regions like Stain (and regions that use Stain as logistic midpoint) , will not be cut off from NPC supply lines. Without NPC supply route , for many groups , the only possible way to have logistics running will be only by having more blue , all along the route.
4. Do you think that giving dreadnoughts increased range , and fatigue reduction can bring those ships back to more common use. They are defenseless without sub capital support.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
davet517
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
170
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 16:36:06 -
[54] - Quote
What are the overall statistics for capital and super-capital participation in combat, before and after phoebe? Have they been participating in fights more, less, or about the same? Some of us are certainly using them less. Have they seen more use by smaller entities who are less afraid of a response from one of the major alliances?
What aspects of the player base's response to Phoebe is what you expected, and what has surprised you?
What goals of yours for introducing phoebe are being met, and which aren't, and what adjustments do you think you could make to meet more of them?
|
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
127
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 16:37:20 -
[55] - Quote
Sugar Kyle wrote:Thirdsin wrote:Generally these outreach efforts are a follow up. They are follow up to conversations and conclusions already reached by the internal audience (CCP/CSMs) and now validation of findings and discovery of areas of community push-back is done with the 'round table'.
So, if we could cut to the chase - What changes have already been tentatively announced by CCP or suggested by the CSMs?
Obviously wing and a prayer for an actual answer here since it seems every time a CSM talks about changes they start with "I'm under NDA, but my personal feeling is...".
Grabbing popcorn. We're starting with player involvement so when we sit down at the summit we're working off of all of this instead of just our pieces. We can always shut it down and go and make decisons but I like it this way. We've already started so we might as well keep going.
But what are we questioning? We are asking CCP about our experiences over the last 8-9 months?
Asking for stats and hearing about what CCP's opinion is does nothing to clarify how the player base feels. What we see in this thread are people morphing examples of what they don't like into questions. So the answer that CCP Larrikin gives, doesn't actually matter. The important thing is that the intent behind the question is noted.
An event where CCP does more talking than listening does not seem like a good starting point. |
Rob Kaichin
Empire Assault Corp Dead Terrorists
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 16:37:22 -
[56] - Quote
drunklies wrote:Sugar Kyle wrote:Rob Kaichin wrote:I think it might be worth screening the questions to remove the deliberately agenda'd ones. Entering a question that submits the answer itself isn't going to do anything valuable, and will just waste CCP's time.
For my own questions:
The changes have seen a renaissance for the use of Capitals by low-sec groups in low-sec. Does CCP think this is a good thing?
If they plan to increase jump range, (with attendant impacts on low-sec), how do they plan to mitigate this?
Also, Sugar, you tease, sneaking this around :P. <3
We are making a master document of questions not just reading the forum posts one by one. It is not a single persons project which means all of our varied views will keep the topic at the top and not agendas... except for the agenda of looking at this mechanic. This is a great idea, but people can ask a valid question and propose a possible answer at the same time. Will you also be trawling for potential mechanic's changes from this thread to supplement questions?
The problem comes when people answer their own question, as if it is the only answer.
Still, I think Ammzi has the best question so far.
I'd like to see an answer to "Which issues can CCP currently identify with the existing jump mechanics?"
I would also like to see "What successes has CCP identified with the new jump mechanics?" |
Sugar Kyle
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1013
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 16:37:43 -
[57] - Quote
drunklies wrote:Sugar Kyle wrote:Rob Kaichin wrote:I think it might be worth screening the questions to remove the deliberately agenda'd ones. Entering a question that submits the answer itself isn't going to do anything valuable, and will just waste CCP's time.
For my own questions:
The changes have seen a renaissance for the use of Capitals by low-sec groups in low-sec. Does CCP think this is a good thing?
If they plan to increase jump range, (with attendant impacts on low-sec), how do they plan to mitigate this?
Also, Sugar, you tease, sneaking this around :P. <3
We are making a master document of questions not just reading the forum posts one by one. It is not a single persons project which means all of our varied views will keep the topic at the top and not agendas... except for the agenda of looking at this mechanic. This is a great idea, but people can ask a valid question and propose a possible answer at the same time. Will you also be trawling for potential mechanic's changes from this thread to supplement questions?
I doesn't hurt if people want to answer them.
Agendas can be valid, yes. I believe Rob was more speaking of nonproductive agendas aka trolling or just snarky anger. A question and proposal isngreat. How and why you got there is also useful to me due to the thought processes.
Consider this a mingling of our normal soundboards in a more townhall format. We did not want to restrict acess as we need to in an open discussion forum. This is a big topic but we are going to take it on. We would like to be as smooth and productive as possible along the way.
Member of CSMX - CSMX Weekly Updates
Member of CSM9
Low Sec Lifestyle - An Eve Blog
@Sugar_Kyle
|
Sugar Kyle
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1013
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 16:39:01 -
[58] - Quote
Rob Kaichin wrote:
The problem comes when people answer their own question, as if it is the only answer.
Still, I think Ammzi has the best question so far.
I'd like to see an answer to "Which issues can CCP currently identify with the existing jump mechanics?"
Dont worry until we call the whole thing off because of one persons approch. ;)
Member of CSMX - CSMX Weekly Updates
Member of CSM9
Low Sec Lifestyle - An Eve Blog
@Sugar_Kyle
|
gunny Aubaris
Mid West Coalition Two Inch Terror
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 16:44:21 -
[59] - Quote
What are the top 3 issues that CCP feels needs addressing in the next balance pass.
|
drunklies
Nocturnal Romance Cynosural Field Theory.
4
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 16:55:12 -
[60] - Quote
Rob Kaichin wrote:drunklies wrote:Sugar Kyle wrote:Rob Kaichin wrote:I think it might be worth screening the questions to remove the deliberately agenda'd ones. Entering a question that submits the answer itself isn't going to do anything valuable, and will just waste CCP's time.
For my own questions:
The changes have seen a renaissance for the use of Capitals by low-sec groups in low-sec. Does CCP think this is a good thing?
If they plan to increase jump range, (with attendant impacts on low-sec), how do they plan to mitigate this?
Also, Sugar, you tease, sneaking this around :P. <3
We are making a master document of questions not just reading the forum posts one by one. It is not a single persons project which means all of our varied views will keep the topic at the top and not agendas... except for the agenda of looking at this mechanic. This is a great idea, but people can ask a valid question and propose a possible answer at the same time. Will you also be trawling for potential mechanic's changes from this thread to supplement questions? The problem comes when people answer their own question, as if it is the only answer. Still, I think Ammzi has the best question so far. I'd like to see an answer to "Which issues can CCP currently identify with the existing jump mechanics?" I would also like to see "What successes has CCP identified with the new jump mechanics?"
These are good questions, but there seems little point in only trying to find out what CCP thinks about these mechanics.
Generating additional questions with either possible mechanics or questions about implementation so far.
Edit: also, I did sat proposed, but I take you point on people saying their way is the only way. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |