Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 59 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2685
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 00:28:08 -
[1441] - Quote
Lord Mudeki wrote:Tsukino Stareine wrote:It's a direct nerf yes but people can't see the big picture. Overall this will help the game imo. No it wont, all its going to do is cause a lot of people to unsub accounts, rorquals will either possibly be sold en masse there by dropping the price and/or not used anymore, as far as pvp goes I think its a good idea but for mining I don't think its a good idea at all or even well thought out pertaining to mining and the rorqual, to me this change is totally for pvp and not for mining, they are just throwing it in there so pvpers can have more easy targets. To be honest as Ive seen several posts saying the same thing and I agree with it, if this is supposed to be a pvp pew pew game only then get rid of everything else, if I wasn't supposed to do only industry related stuff then get rid of it all and make it so where you can only pvp, then we wont have to worry about so called "carebears" because pretty much 50% or more people in the game would leave/unsub their accounts and you would be left with nothing but pvpers but then again at that point the game would probably not be profitable anymore.
When Rorqual prices crash, I am buying three of them and multiboxing with the new mining fighters.
How is using a Rorqual in a belt - out of Industrial Core mode - any different than ratting in a Carrier?
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
427
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 00:44:34 -
[1442] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:Also in b4 mining nerds crying about having to reload every 5 hours
Just have your hauler bring in from Citadel, the hauler dumps out anyway, so, why not?
"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X
"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron
-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-
|
Kaal Redrum
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
52
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 02:22:54 -
[1443] - Quote
Im not sure if this has been asked and answered already, but im currently away from the game, and while the change to bringing boosting on-grid has been long due, i cant say im very happy with the current iteration.
I understand why CCP chose this direction, but dont they think this will simply reward N+1 gameplay i.e. always favor the larger player groups?
People who, for the majority, fly in small groups of 3-5, giving up a pilot to fly a 'command' ship is a major loss in 'gang power', as compared to an alliance 50-man Cerb blob, investing 1 of 50 pilots to the role?
Further, what happens to 'fast/kiting' gameplay? The gang is as good as the slowest ship, so unless CCP is about to give us high speed Command Ships (speedboost Sleipnirs!), how do they expect this gameplay to survive? I respect its not for everyone, but its the best way to stretch engagements and fight outnumbered, one of the core emergent gameplay for many subscribers, including me.
What happens to Marauders in PvP with on-grid boosting requirements?
What happens to 'scram-immune' Nightmare gangs?
Yes, all these changes apply to everyone equally but theyre clearly going to reward the F1 conga-line Cerb fleets even more.
Would CCP prefer if EVERYONE in the game forms a big blue donut and the only fights are Cerb vs Cerb, or T3 vs T3 or Cap vs Cap 100-man slugfests?
Small gang pilots like me will evolve and adapt, but these are very shortsighted changes. Very odd. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3138
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 02:27:26 -
[1444] - Quote
As for Anam 2 gangs needing to give up a pilot that is the same for any fleet rule. As for kiting have you seen how fast command desi move? Boost as a mechanic will always benefit n+1 and this change only hurts small groups who were relying on ogb where it is a huge advantage to the small groups who can't or don't ogb
BLOPS Hauler
|
Drigo Segvian
Black Fox Marauders
20
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 14:51:01 -
[1445] - Quote
Kaal Redrum wrote:Im not sure if this has been asked and answered already, but im currently away from the game, and while the change to bringing boosting on-grid has been long due, i cant say im very happy with the current iteration.
I understand why CCP chose this direction, but dont they think this will simply reward N+1 gameplay i.e. always favor the larger player groups?
People who, for the majority, fly in small groups of 3-5, giving up a pilot to fly a 'command' ship is a major loss in 'gang power', as compared to an alliance 50-man Cerb blob, investing 1 of 50 pilots to the role?
Further, what happens to 'fast/kiting' gameplay? The gang is as good as the slowest ship, so unless CCP is about to give us high speed Command Ships (speedboost Sleipnirs!), how do they expect this gameplay to survive?
Command Destroyers now need to hug their gangs OR focus on attacking/defensive MJD tactics? Whats the point then?
I respect its not for everyone, but its the best way to stretch engagements and fight outnumbered, one of the core emergent gameplay for many subscribers, including me.
What happens to Marauders in PvP with on-grid boosting requirements?
What happens to Phantasm or Nightmare gangs?
Yes, all these changes apply to everyone equally but theyre clearly going to reward the F1 conga-line 50+ Cerb/Caracal/Insert-Ship fleets even more.
Small gang pilots like me will evolve and adapt, but these are very shortsighted changes. Very odd.
You have to get good if you want to skirmish.
We almost always fly skirmish without links. It will be fun to see what happens now that we run into other skirmish gangs that heavily rely on links. |
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
9
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 17:59:37 -
[1446] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Laurens Punani wrote:Tsukino Stareine wrote:it doesn't change the fact that this boost will be used by far fewer people due to the risk averse nature of miners
less ore overall, higher prices for the little guy who likely never had these boosts in the first place Sov-null industiralists are ALL gonna use it. I am gonna produce a ton of minerals more than right now... i guess you are not an industrialist, right? :D the smaall guys normally get free orca boost in highsec and rorqual boost in NRDS space... they just have to ask for it. Come november thats over, so i get 133% boost, mining fighters, safe space, mining anomalies and good customers and they get a big punch in the face :D i pointed out earlier what could be done to change that, but i guess you have not read that. I like how ALTHOUG you were completely wrong, you still want to be right :D Prices wont change much, the yield for small alliances or solo miners will drop Dramatically while Sov-Null yield goes up. btw. its harder to kill Sov-Null miners, so you should be on my side... promoting a better fututre for smaller entities and getting more miners in belts without the support of a whole fleet --> nice killmails "133% boost?" Can you run the maths for me on that one?
1/(1-0,5714) =2,33 =233%
its a cycle time bonus. it the cycle time is reduced by 50% you can run the module twice in the same time. --> 100% boost a 66% cycle time reduction leads to 200% boosts. 33% cycle time reduction leads to 50% boost 90% cycle time reduction leads to a 1000% boost 99% cycle time reduction leads to a 10 000% boost
pretty easy math. you learn that stuff in year 6 |
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
9
|
Posted - 2016.09.19 18:05:58 -
[1447] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:Lord Mudeki wrote:Tsukino Stareine wrote:It's a direct nerf yes but people can't see the big picture. Overall this will help the game imo. No it wont, all its going to do is cause a lot of people to unsub accounts, rorquals will either possibly be sold en masse there by dropping the price and/or not used anymore, as far as pvp goes I think its a good idea but for mining I don't think its a good idea at all or even well thought out pertaining to mining and the rorqual, to me this change is totally for pvp and not for mining, they are just throwing it in there so pvpers can have more easy targets. To be honest as Ive seen several posts saying the same thing and I agree with it, if this is supposed to be a pvp pew pew game only then get rid of everything else, if I wasn't supposed to do only industry related stuff then get rid of it all and make it so where you can only pvp, then we wont have to worry about so called "carebears" because pretty much 50% or more people in the game would leave/unsub their accounts and you would be left with nothing but pvpers but then again at that point the game would probably not be profitable anymore. "a lot of people" an arbitrary number that nor you or I will know. You think it's 50% of the people, I predict that less than 1% will unsub because of this change. First because they probably just won't care and secondly are not dumb enough to. I doubt a significant amount of people will leave because of this and even if they did it's idiotic because they cannot see the overall good this can do to the economy. So what if people sell their rorquals, less minerals, higher prices again. If you're so short sighted that you think this is for "pvpers to have more targets" then I don't know what else to say for you. @Malcanis I did the math, it is indeed going to be a 133% yield increase, up from 97% we currently have.
the thing is, most industrialists are under the impression that 90% or the minerals are mined by 1% of the undustrialists ;) I personally know people who mine more than 250b worth of ore per month... if 99% of the industrialists unsub their accounts, the prices will still not change that much...
my impression might be wrong tho. it might only be 80% of the minerals...
|
GROUND XERO
Rennfeuer Project.Mayhem.
5
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 06:08:32 -
[1448] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Donmadefy wrote:How will these nerfs help solo or small gangs?
You say this is being implemented to help them compete. But I find it directly effecting single players with boosting alt. Why do you keep making the solo players obsolete. I do not wish to conform with your blob warfare crud.
If your nerf one of the only advantages a single player has to compete with the blob. Then whats the point of that. because now not everyone will have a boosting alt hiding in system so it is no longer something everyone needs. it harder now for an alt to fill the role so you need to give it to a pilot that may be better used in dps/tackle/logi/e-war not only that but you can now split fleets away from their booster also if you have a boosting alt you're not solo
na we will see just the rise of falcon alts... |
GROUND XERO
Rennfeuer Project.Mayhem.
5
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 06:09:52 -
[1449] - Quote
Donmadefy wrote:I would be 100% happy if boost where removed from the game. We can not just nerf the small guys. Please thank about it...
this is what we need to do!
|
Drigo Segvian
Black Fox Marauders
20
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 11:45:52 -
[1450] - Quote
GROUND XERO wrote:Donmadefy wrote:I would be 100% happy if boost where removed from the game. We can not just nerf the small guys. Please thank about it... this is what we need to do!
+1 |
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
10
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 13:13:30 -
[1451] - Quote
Drigo Segvian wrote:GROUND XERO wrote:Donmadefy wrote:I would be 100% happy if boost where removed from the game. We can not just nerf the small guys. Please thank about it... this is what we need to do! +1 +1 here :) |
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1916
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 20:51:41 -
[1452] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:
the thing is, most industrialists are under the impression that 90% or the minerals are mined by 1% of the undustrialists ;) I personally know people who mine more than 250b worth of ore per month... if 99% of the industrialists unsub their accounts, the prices will still not change that much...
my impression might be wrong tho. it might only be 80% of the minerals...
"under the impression" being the key phrase here.
Any proof of this? Cause I seriously doubt that the small minority that do mine that much account for that much of the total amount.
Take a look at August's monthly economic report : http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/70511/1/3_mining.value.by.region.png
There's no way that 1% of EVE's industrialists can continue to supply that many minerals. Not even close. I would say the total wealth mined by the 1% will be less than 10% of total minerals mined by the community.
Art of Explosions
|
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
297
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 21:24:44 -
[1453] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:Laurens Punani wrote:
the thing is, most industrialists are under the impression that 90% or the minerals are mined by 1% of the undustrialists ;) I personally know people who mine more than 250b worth of ore per month... if 99% of the industrialists unsub their accounts, the prices will still not change that much...
my impression might be wrong tho. it might only be 80% of the minerals...
"under the impression" being the key phrase here. Any proof of this? Cause I seriously doubt that the small minority that do mine that much account for that much of the total amount. Take a look at August's monthly economic report : http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/70511/1/3_mining.value.by.region.png There's no way that 1% of EVE's industrialists can continue to supply that many minerals. Not even close. I would say the total wealth mined by the 1% will be less than 10% of total minerals mined by the community.
This is why I agree with a change for combat boosts, but not for mining.
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3160
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 21:28:56 -
[1454] - Quote
so miners should be able to continue getting huge boosts with no risk?
BLOPS Hauler
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
832
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 23:14:40 -
[1455] - Quote
lets shift from minor, oops miner, concerns lol...
CCP, will training requirements for CS be altered in this?
In the past for the its bs you need to train all the warfare base skills to fly CS change this threads I have been in the just train them and move on camp. reason being the base warfare skills gave, imo, almost as vital passive resists. Why am I training armour says the person interested in shield boosting.
I'd say 10 % armour ehp is actually useful to even shield tankers. I have had a rokh come home smoking from hull damage, but it came home alive. 10% more armour soaked up the damage that would have had rokh hull pop, I saw its value. 10% targeting range...not a passive bonus to kick out of bed either if no plans to run info links.
In this change the passives are going. And so does my only logical reason why a new booster would need to train all this really. Its now a salty bitter argument of because well we did it. Which for some bitters...we are pre CS change. We needed no heavy leadership trains in the past.
Old boy/girl wants shields and will only be shields they get nothing from armour trains after november. With the normal limit of 3 becoming 2 for CS, the +1 boost mod becoming a rig....chance of me in say nighthawk going lets run armour command burst no bonus from ship slim to none really. Its getting harder to run these mods, I won't be wasting space on unbonused mods.
Inb4 combat CS easier to train this way. This bridge crossed and burned when the CS change made. Intent by design was to focus on CS as a booster , that should be its consideration for training.
Boosting is changing, some warfares will make no sense since no passives....will this stuff be staying the tl;dr question I have. |
Balder Verdandi
Czerka.
297
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 23:18:05 -
[1456] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:so miners should be able to continue getting huge boosts with no risk?
Clearly, you don't mine.
Good day to you, sir.
Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!
POS fix dated back to 2006!
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3160
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 23:19:09 -
[1457] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:lets shift from minor, oops miner, concerns lol...
CCP, will training requirements for CS be altered in this?
In the past for the its bs you need to train all the warfare base skills to fly CS change this threads I have been in the just train them and move on camp. reason being the base warfare skills gave, imo, almost as vital passive resists. Why am I training armour says the person interested in shield boosting.
I'd say 10 % armour ehp is actually useful to even shield tankers. I have had a rokh come home smoking from hull damage, but it came home alive. 10% more armour soaked up the damage that would have had rokh hull pop, I saw its value. 10% targeting range...not a passive bonus to kick out of bed either if no plans to run info links.
In this change the passives are going. And so does my only logical reason why a new booster would need to train all this really. Its now a salty bitter argument of because well we did it. Which for some bitters...we are pre CS change. We needed no heavy leadership trains in the past.
Old boy/girl wants shields and will only be shields they get nothing from armour trains after november. With the normal limit of 3 becoming 2 for CS, the +1 boost mod becoming a rig....chance of me in say nighthawk going lets run armour command burst no bonus from ship slim to none really. Its getting harder to run these mods, I won't be wasting space on unbonused mods.
Inb4 combat CS easier to train this way. This bridge crossed and burned when the CS change made. Intent by design was to focus on CS as a booster , that should be its consideration for training.
Boosting is changing, some warfares will make no sense since no passives....will this stuff be staying the tl;dr question I have.
except you are training for the command ship skill when you are training those skills and that skill is used for all races. Not only that but it is not a random selection of skills when they decide what skills go into a ship they find ones that make seance and that take long enough.
basically if they took out needing all the leardership skills they would replace them with something else that takes just as long considering the time it takes to fly a t2 BC currently fits between cruiser and BB as it should
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3160
|
Posted - 2016.09.20 23:20:18 -
[1458] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:so miners should be able to continue getting huge boosts with no risk? Clearly, you don't mine. Good day to you, sir.
huh? are you saying the boosting ships should be able to give these massive boosts with no risk or not?
BLOPS Hauler
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
832
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 01:15:58 -
[1459] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:basically if they took out needing all the leardership skills they would replace them with something else that takes just as long considering the time it takes to fly a t2 BC currently fits between cruiser and BB as it should
I get the time sink factor....its just its looking like CCP painted themselves in a corner here. A prior change is not making as much sense now.
Its me getting hung on the passives lol....they made the pain of leadership trains tolerable imo. Passives gone, now they are time killers with no good reason in at least 2 out of 4 cases for a potential CS booster. I like to make lemons into lemonades...not getting that here with passive removal.
Caveat I am thinking is you get the CS skill with just 2 leaderships. The ones a race would boost. Problem is complexity of having the game recognize player A can fly NH and wouldn't need the say armour. Or the armour booster not having shields but rest. Complex but not impossible. Its requirements just have a bit if then else code tacked on.
If siege and info 5 then CS okay else if siege and skirmish then CS okay etc....
A related concern is I actually want CS as booster to be viable. Been an issue for years. CCP seems to be aware but changes just cement T3's spot as preferred booster. easier CS may be the lesser of 2 evils. yes its more CS on the field since easier to get combat wise. Evil 1 here.
Other evil as I see it its just spam t3 booster even more and CS as booster gets ignored even more.
Cutting off your nose to spite your face a phrase that comes to mind here. And I am usually I walked up the hill for 3 miles in snow with no shoes to school so the youngins can too grumpy old bitter. In this case...not going that route.
T3 is just looking good, if not better in this change. Can't find the exact boosts but iirc CS just gets just mere % increase over t3. CCP tried this in CS rebalance...it didn't work. T3 bonused less and people didn't trade in their boost tengu's for NH's post change. No real reason too. Its the side stuff of t3 and t3 boosts let you pick and choose 1 by 1...or just the 1.
Way I read these changes, this not helping. Range or duration is what these skills give. a few seconds more or a few km's more....t3 is still looking better for the ease of train really. Oh no... I only burst 35 kms and not 38, emo rage quit over this right now as t3 boosts are now crap. Not happening as I can see it. I won't sweat a few km's. Many won't. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3160
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 01:22:10 -
[1460] - Quote
lowering the train time will not have a noticeable effect on how many are on field. The big problem with T3 is you take a small 5% hit but can use 3 types of links. that utility is why it is king for boosters. tbh I have no idea why CCP thought it was a good idea to give them this but i can't figure out why they did a lot with T3s
BLOPS Hauler
|
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
832
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 04:14:33 -
[1461] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:lowering the train time will not have a noticeable effect on how many are on field. The big problem with T3 is you take a small 5% hit but can use 3 types of links. that utility is why it is king for boosters. tbh I have no idea why CCP thought it was a good idea to give them this but i can't figure out why they did a lot with T3s EDIT that is why everyone flys t3s and this is why even after the changes still no one will fly Command ships
Yeah I know. Just looking for angles to change that. More I think about, more I know the outcome. Which is fine...I like t3. Just be nice if it wasn't the only viable option.
Like 2 rigs for t2 and 3 for t3 would be the other nail on the coffin. And I don't see this new +1 rig being more than 200 calibration (so many t3 fits as is will just be pull 1 rig if needed). It hurt CS if so. With booster on grid...t3 having 3 slots another why bother with boost running CS really I predict (shooty or tanky rig options among others limited on CS). Is this being looked at CCP? (knows what asking will get me but oh well).
Maybe they have some ace up the sleeve for this. Not betting the farm on it. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3163
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 04:32:06 -
[1462] - Quote
what CCP needs to do is a pass on the CBCs they were skipped when they did the T1 BCs they should have more tank (even shield CBCs are losing tank now that the processor is a rig) Would be nice if the caldari/amarr were just bricks some tank and spank then gal/minm just a bit less tanky but fast enough to keep pace with ABCs. the current hulls currently have these themes just not to a level that makes them a viable choice (well i'm sure we will still see sleipnir out of all of them probably the most viable)
EDIT:
as well the damnation probably doesn't need much more tank but it could use a bit of DPS if it want to be picked over a t3
BLOPS Hauler
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
606
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 11:47:32 -
[1463] - Quote
Just for those who haven't seen this yet.......
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=493696&find=unread
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
Donmadefy
Grieftech
35
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 16:46:22 -
[1464] - Quote
Raivi was a blober CCP Fozzie is a carebear in other words.
The blob, CCP just loves the blob. No idea how to give love to anything but NPC and blobwarfare |
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
10
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 16:51:07 -
[1465] - Quote
nice -.- so mining with maximum boost (the only proper way of mining) will only be something for the big alliances then...
i mean, you could get two citadels to save a few billions on the rigs, but otherwise you'll need to invest more than 50 billion just to keep mining :D
wp CCP |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3167
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 18:20:19 -
[1466] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:
nice -.- so mining with maximum boost (the only proper way of mining)
and that type of thinking is your problem.
also please remember large industrial arrays and drilling platforms will not be near as expensive as citadels
BLOPS Hauler
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
10
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 19:12:57 -
[1467] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Laurens Punani wrote:
nice -.- so mining with maximum boost (the only proper way of mining)
and that type of thinking is your problem. also please remember large industrial arrays and drilling platforms will not be near as expensive as citadels
dude... try in mine in a venture without boosts :D you'd be happy to make 1 million isk per hour. you clearly dont know what you are talking about .
+ where did you see the price for those platforms? i did not see any on the market... and until i see them i wont believe that they are cheap. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3168
|
Posted - 2016.09.21 19:48:17 -
[1468] - Quote
i know plenty of people mine w/o boosts all over eve let alone max boosts
as for the prices they stated citadels would be by far the most expensive intended to be used as HQs and markets
BLOPS Hauler
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
12
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 06:47:45 -
[1469] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:i know plenty of people mine w/o boosts all over eve let alone max boosts
as for the prices they stated citadels would be by far the most expensive intended to be used as HQs and markets
most recent prices puts the large at about 1/2 price of a fort
so thats 40 billion for the fleet/cita/drilling platform than :D
I bet there is noone who makes money while mining without boosts. Give me an example of how to make 40 million an hour (easyly made while ratting in a cruiser) without boosts. |
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
429
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 08:46:25 -
[1470] - Quote
Laurens Punani wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:i know plenty of people mine w/o boosts all over eve let alone max boosts
as for the prices they stated citadels would be by far the most expensive intended to be used as HQs and markets
most recent prices puts the large at about 1/2 price of a fort so thats 40 billion for the fleet/cita/drilling platform than :D I bet there is noone who makes money while mining without boosts. Give me an example of how to make 40 million an hour (easyly made while ratting in a cruiser) without boosts.
Maybe people mining don't need top dollar, just a way to eat away time, who says it has to compete with other game elements?
"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X
"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron
-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 59 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |