Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3126
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 23:41:25 -
[211] - Quote
Arronicus wrote:Rowells wrote:If you haven't already figured out a way to allow ships to access hangars from outside the structures, please allow an exception for the rorqual on the Large EC until that comes into place.
It would be very odd for the rorqual to have a position of ore transport that can't even use the Large. Otherwise you'll end up with a scenario where people have to keep a freighter and a fort nearby to utilize them both together. Sit the rorq on the undock, with a DST/freighter/hauler. One drops a can, rorq dumps compressed ore in can, hauler scoops, docks up. problem solved. Mild hassle, but nothing really problematic. I'm aware of the work around, but it's still a terrible design if that is the only/easiest way to do it. It also devalues the rorq as an ore hauler over other options.
On top of the fact that it's a new hassle that seems to have no justification or acknowledgement. |
Scuzzy Logic
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
156
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 00:04:50 -
[212] - Quote
QUESTION: Are these structures meant to replace reaction arrays and Drug labs? The Gas Guys in the corp need to know if they'll need to fork up a small POS when we move the manufacturing over.
Morgaine Mighthammer wrote:so... i'm curious as to why / how the decision was made to double nerf the defenses of engineering complexes? i mean, i'm perfectly ok with lower hp and dmg output and all that, and i'm ok with increased vulnerability windows, but why on earth do we have to get both? cant you just pick one? and revert the other? like give them the increased vulnerability and nerfed dmg, but leave their hp alone.
any insight on this?
CCP hates industry. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1999
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 00:08:23 -
[213] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Either way with industry efficiency is all you have. Duh. That's the whole point of my post. So at this point did you intentionally miss the idea of seeking specific efficiencies instead of just having them all since you can't work with other aspects? |
Scuzzy Logic
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
156
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 00:13:48 -
[214] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:At a POS I can deploy as many weapons as I want, then bring them online as required. If attacked I have the option to turn off industrial modules and online the weaponry & hardeners.
With Engineering Complexes I will basically be forced to either give up industry entirely, or find a large group of people I can pay to defend my structure against attackers. These things are basically loot pi+¦atas. Larger vulnerability windows, fewer defences, lower hitpoints, same DPS caps (and no rep caps, because we just can't repair them ourselves) GǪ it's going to be far easier to destroy an engineering complex than a POS with similar capabilities (remembering I can change a POS from industrial complex to ECM & resistances dickstar in a matter of minutes).
The message I'm receiving loud and clear is, "don't do industry if you're not one of the two largest coalitions in the game."
Honestly, I always thought that the Eng Complexes should be entremely tough and robust, but have no actual dps.
These things should have a ton of interior generators and excessive armor plating. |
Scuzzy Logic
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
156
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 00:17:24 -
[215] - Quote
Kynric wrote:Will it be possible to process gas for boosters, t2 or t3 production within the upwell structure? Will the assembly lines be capeable of supporting pharmacudical manufacture?
Someone who also does gas harvesting!
Are you single ? I'm in love!
Seriously, though, CCP, get in here. We niche manufacturers have more questions than answers atm.
Make a spreadsheet of what modules will get replaced by what structure/rig please! |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
6207
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 00:25:36 -
[216] - Quote
Scuzzy Logic wrote:QUESTION: Are these structures meant to replace reaction arrays and Drug labs? The Gas Guys in the corp need to know if they'll need to fork up a small POS when we move the manufacturing over. Morgaine Mighthammer wrote:so... i'm curious as to why / how the decision was made to double nerf the defenses of engineering complexes? i mean, i'm perfectly ok with lower hp and dmg output and all that, and i'm ok with increased vulnerability windows, but why on earth do we have to get both? cant you just pick one? and revert the other? like give them the increased vulnerability and nerfed dmg, but leave their hp alone.
any insight on this? CCP hates industry.
No, they're not meant to replace reaction arrays.
Woo! CSM XI!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3240
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 00:37:58 -
[217] - Quote
so what did docking have to do with pricing? once POS go if these are the general costs its going to make WH space even more prohibitive to the new/small groups that have up to this point thrived in low class holes
also for the love of god can we tax compression
BLOPS Hauler
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6451
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 00:47:34 -
[218] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:The large one must allow Rorqual docking. Agreed.
Doesn't make sense to be able to manufacture them, but they can't dock in it. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1172
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 01:11:42 -
[219] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Either way with industry efficiency is all you have. Duh. That's the whole point of my post. So at this point did you intentionally miss the idea of seeking specific efficiencies instead of just having them all since you can't work with other aspects? Jesus man. Go back and read my post FFS.
I asked about the reasoning behind CCP choosing not to allow 3 X t2 rigs, but requiring something to be less efficient, despite efficiency being a big part of the play in industry.
It's not like there aren't choices for rigs and I never asked for the ability to do everything with one fit. There's 106 rigs or something. 3 into 106 obviously requires consession and choice.
But why, even with that choice does one of those have to be nerfed?
It was a question to CCP. If you lack the brain to understand it, going off on other topics makes little sense. Just STFU and only look like an idiot instead of confirming it.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2000
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 01:26:00 -
[220] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Either way with industry efficiency is all you have. Duh. That's the whole point of my post. So at this point did you intentionally miss the idea of seeking specific efficiencies instead of just having them all since you can't work with other aspects? Jesus man. Go back and read my post FFS. I asked about the reasoning behind CCP choosing not to allow 3 X t2 rigs, but requiring something to be less efficient, despite efficiency being a big part of the play in industry. It's not like there aren't choices for rigs and I never asked for the ability to do everything with one fit. There's 106 rigs or something. 3 into 106 obviously requires consession and choice. But why, even with that choice does one of those have to be nerfed? It was a question to CCP. If you lack the brain to understand it, going off on other topics makes little sense. Just STFU and only look like an idiot instead of confirming it. So when it's stated that the idea was to not have the primary advantage universally in a single structure that doesn't apply to the question of why they can't have that same thing?
Yes, there are different rigs, but the ones most sought he will be the ones directly relating to build costs on these structures directly designed for building things. In it's core competency there is no concession of choice if you can have all 3. |
|
Zappity
Horde Vanguard. Pandemic Horde
3037
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 01:30:05 -
[221] - Quote
The Observatory should be able to screen super building status. But the contents should always show up on the killmail.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
|
Nfynity Prime
Nfynity Prime Corp
2
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 01:31:45 -
[222] - Quote
I was really looking forward to this expansion, but not any more. Not very happy about most of this, but the fuel costs are especially egregious.
60 blocks / hour for just your basic manufacturing, research, and invention. That's more than 3 times as much as a faction medium tower, which also happens to do everything, not just a couple selective niches, with efficiency, while being much tougher to kill as well as portable and cheaper to put up!.
To put that in perspective, we're talking approximately 750,000,000 ISK / month for this thing (Medium EC) versus around 250,000,000 ISK for the vastly superior POS. Where's the risk vs reward? It's all increased risks and costs for less reward. How much more stuff do you need to make to just recoup the extra 1/2 bil IKS in fuel costs? I don't know about some, but I actually already have a full time job and don't need another.
If nothing else, at least cut the fuel cost in half or less and/or remove the onlining costs for the modules.
It still wouldn't be as good as a POS, due to being locked into certain niches and being much more vulnerable and non portable and more expensive for less functionality, but it might at least be better than going back to a station again. As is, they are all worthless for all but the largest corps, who can keep them running non stop to make up for the fuel costs and have large fleets to protect their paper thin assets! |
Mariko Musashi Hareka
Kaishin.
7
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 01:32:51 -
[223] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Either way with industry efficiency is all you have. Duh. That's the whole point of my post. So at this point did you intentionally miss the idea of seeking specific efficiencies instead of just having them all since you can't work with other aspects? Jesus man. Go back and read my post FFS. I asked about the reasoning behind CCP choosing not to allow 3 X t2 rigs, but requiring something to be less efficient, despite efficiency being a big part of the play in industry. It's not like there aren't choices for rigs and I never asked for the ability to do everything with one fit. There's 106 rigs or something. 3 into 106 obviously requires consession and choice (and that 106 includes both the t1 and t2). Clearly even halving the rigs and only providing one version of each, still provides for significant choice and gameplay. But why, even with that choice does one of those have to be nerfed? It was a question to CCP. If you lack the brain to understand it, going off on other topics makes little sense. Just STFU and only look like an idiot instead of confirming it.
Yea I'm in agreement with the investment anyone or any entity has to put into these structures there should be no reason we cant use 3 T2 rigs just seems ******** to only be able to use 2 T2 and 1 T1, hell theres some ships that can use 2 T2 rigs so why the hell cant something as big as these things are |
Urziel99
Unified Research and Industrial
141
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 01:38:44 -
[224] - Quote
Okay, where to begin?
So the devs hope to encourage small entities to use structures so they give them weaker, less well armed, and more vulnerable structures and actually expect anyone to use them outside of the large power groups? Pathetic.
Then to add insult to injury they hype up mining in a 3 billion isk ship and then not let that ship dock in most of the damn industrial structures they are making. Talk about pants on head ********.
And as if that wasn't enough the pissant structures they did put out lack the versatility to support any decent industrial operation and will drain you dry with fuel costs to boot.
Sorry CCP, but your plans on this kinda blow. I'll stick to NPC stations thanks. |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 01:38:51 -
[225] - Quote
Nfynity Prime wrote:I was really looking forward to this expansion, but not any more. Not very happy about most of this, but the fuel costs are especially egregious. 60 blocks / hour for just your basic manufacturing, research, and invention. That's more than 3 times as much as a faction medium tower, which also happens to do everything, not just a couple selective niches, with efficiency, while being much tougher to kill as well as portable and cheaper to put up!. To put that in perspective, we're talking approximately 750,000,000 ISK / month for this thing (Medium EC) versus around 250,000,000 ISK for the vastly superior POS. Where's the risk vs reward? It's all increased risks and costs for less reward. How much more stuff do you need to make to just recoup the extra 1/2 bil IKS in fuel costs? I don't know about some, but I actually already have a full time job and don't need another. If nothing else, at least cut the fuel cost in half or less and/or remove the onlining costs for the modules. It still wouldn't be as good as a POS, due to being locked into certain niches and being much more vulnerable and non portable and more expensive for less functionality, but it might at least be better than going back to a station again. As is, they are all worthless for all but the largest corps, who can keep them running non stop to make up for the fuel costs and have large fleets to protect their paper thin assets! This is all aimed at costing large Null alliances more, to cut down on some of their massive incomes. However as usual everyone else gets screwed.
CCP please stop focusing on Null and focus on the parts of the game that look like ghost towns. |
MuraSaki Siki
Es and Whizz Hedonistic Imperative
67
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 01:58:13 -
[226] - Quote
when supers are built at X-large Complexes, what happen when the job delivered? would that supers ejected from Complexes automatically? or just like other ships you can fit it inside the Complexes? |
Urziel99
Unified Research and Industrial
141
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 02:05:25 -
[227] - Quote
MuraSaki Siki wrote:when supers are built at X-large Complexes, what happen when the job delivered? would that supers ejected from Complexes automatically? or just like other ships you can fit it inside the Complexes?
Probably delivered inside (with the external view instead of the hangar when active) then to undock it just comes off the drydock area where it was built and can't redock once it leaves the structure. |
Ghaustyl Kathix
Rising Thunder
85
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 02:21:24 -
[228] - Quote
Can we get a higher-quality, 1080p version of this screenshot from the dev blog that isn't so JPG'd? That's desktop background material right there. |
MrB99
Astral Mining
18
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 02:26:33 -
[229] - Quote
Althalus Stenory wrote:E6o5 wrote:Why do BPOs stored/used in the structure do not drop if the structure is destroyed? With Towers right now they have a Chance to drop. With the new structures there is so little risk for the owner ...
Even less players will use the new structures if they do this
Yep. Nobody is going to risk researching a billion ISK BPO in a paper structure unless they did this. It is one of the things CCP did right. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1173
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 02:42:52 -
[230] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:So when it's stated that the idea was to not have the primary advantage universally in a single structure that doesn't apply to the question of why they can't have that same thing?
Yes, there are different rigs, but the ones most sought he will be the ones directly relating to build costs on these structures directly designed for building things. In it's core competency there is no concession of choice if you can have all 3.
No, I think you are not understanding.
Of the rig options, there are a mix of material efficiency, time efficiency, invention cost, invention time, research cost, research time, invention cost, invention time, copying cost and copyting time efficiency rigs, all in T1 and T2 version.
In the manufacturing line, there are separate rigs for equipment, ammunition, small ship, medium ship, large ship (advanced in each of those sizes for T2 ships), advanced component, capital and structure focused rigs.
So there is far, far more options than simply fitting 3 build cost rigs. That's not a very detailed look at the options available. Did you even look at the variety of rig combinations?
So even if in a single structure, I wanted to focus on ammunition manufacture, with the ability for t2 manufacture and copying of my existing BPOs, which are all already 10/20 researched.
That one single scenario alone gives me options to choose between 4 likely rigs:
Standup Ammunition Manufacturing Time Efficiency Standup Ammunition Material Efficiency Standup invention Standup copying
3 of 4 means one of those activities will not be bonused from rigs at all. No problem, that's a good choice around which way to go.
So say I choose material + time + invention
Of those 3 that I want to optimise, and accept that copying will not be the most efficient it can be, I can still only optimise 2 of those choices, not all 3. One of them is going to be slightly nerfed against the maximum possible efficiency.
All I want to know is why, given that there are so many choices available anyway. It doesn't on the surface make much sense to gimp a part of that process.
So far, I haven't seen anything from you explaining in CCPs words why that choice was made. Just a heap of sperg because reasons.
Nothing you have added has answered the question I asked, just dumb argument for argument's sake.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1144
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 02:45:47 -
[231] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:Altrue wrote:A bit sad over the higher vulnerability timers and the retaining of the system cost manufacturing index, but I understand why both of these aspects are necessary.
What of the ability to use a Market Service Module? Is it limited to L and XL or only for XL? I expect that the market service module can only be fit to Fortizars, Keepstars, and the Palatine Keepstar. Not the engineering complexes. It would seem counter-design to allow a manufacturing structure to provide the market services of a Citadel. Same, I would expect, for clone services. As the new structures require both market networks AND medical centers as part of the build, it would seem Devs have repeated the fiasco with the medium Citadels (require market networks to build) by including build items the structure is unable to utilize. Or, the new structures will double up on existing structure uses and have markets and cloning services..
Shame Devs don't have enough imagination to create something from scratch and are just rehashing the same old things with price tags that exclude so many players.
Bigger shame is; instead of one or 2 structures worth a few bil each, you will now need 4 or 5 structures worth 10's of billion each to do the same thing.
I for one am glad Alpha clones are coming with this release, it will free up so much of my time and effort each week as an industrialist.
CCP not only went into this "hat on head", they also turned off logic and risk vs reward in the planning process.
Hint; Not everyone wants to belong to a mega group - Not everyone who plays Eve has trillions of isk, some of us survive month to month. Keep pricing us out of our income earning pursuits, you eventually chase us into finding other ways to utilize our "leisure time"
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Professor Humbert
Project Fruit House Solyaris Chtonium
30
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 02:52:24 -
[232] - Quote
Can an engineering complex fit a market service module? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3126
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 02:53:31 -
[233] - Quote
Professor Humbert wrote:Can an engineering complex fit a market service module? from the looks of it, yes. Not sure if any size restriction or not. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2000
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 03:00:56 -
[234] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:So when it's stated that the idea was to not have the primary advantage universally in a single structure that doesn't apply to the question of why they can't have that same thing?
Yes, there are different rigs, but the ones most sought he will be the ones directly relating to build costs on these structures directly designed for building things. In it's core competency there is no concession of choice if you can have all 3. No, I think you are not understanding. Of the rig options, there are a mix of material efficiency, time efficiency, invention cost, invention time, research cost, research time, invention cost, invention time, copying cost and copyting time efficiency rigs, all in T1 and T2 version. In the manufacturing line, there are separate rigs for equipment, ammunition, small ship, medium ship, large ship (advanced in each of those sizes for T2 ships), advanced component, capital and structure focused rigs. So there is far, far more options than simply fitting 3 build cost rigs. That's not a very detailed look at the options available. Did you even look at the variety of rig combinations? So even if in a single structure, I wanted to focus on ammunition manufacture, with the ability for t2 manufacture and copying of my existing BPOs, which are all already 10/20 researched. That one single scenario alone gives me options to choose between 4 likely rigs: Standup Ammunition Manufacturing Time Efficiency Standup Ammunition Material Efficiency Standup invention Standup copying 3 of 4 means one of those activities will not be bonused from rigs at all. No problem, that's a good choice around which way to go. So say I choose material + time + invention Of those 3 that I want to optimise, and accept that copying will not be the most efficient it can be, I can still only optimise 2 of those choices, not all 3. One of them is going to be slightly nerfed against the maximum possible efficiency. All I want to know is why, given that there are so many choices available anyway. It doesn't on the surface make much sense to gimp a part of that process. So far, I haven't seen anything from you explaining in CCPs words why that choice was made. Just a heap of sperg because reasons. Nothing you have added has answered the question I asked, just dumb argument for argument's sake. The answer still stands. There's going to be an optimal for any use case. Assuming one use from a manufacturing standpoint uses 2 rigs, the relevant time and efficiency rigs, the remaining one isn't going to apply fully. So you have close to optimal single functions with additions (in your scenario inventing T2 BPCs or the actual manufacturing of ammo). You can go fully one way or 1 T2 and 1 T1 leaving a T2 for supplementing the other activity. There's 2 levels of decision there with intent I believe. Especially since yours may tend towards a narrow focus, but others may not. the goal here seems to be probably aimed at preventing single structures with too wide ranges of efficiency cost reductions.
Whether you believe that's positive or not is another question, but the intent seems geared around providing either strong focus and less strong support but not allowing 3 strong complementary bonuses. That design seems geared at making jobs move between structures. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1173
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 03:10:26 -
[235] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:The answer still stands. Really, can you quote it for me?
Not your opinion. My original question was about CCP's thinking. They are the only one that matter and the reason the question was posted here, as this is a thread actively monitored by them, as all threads here are.
So where's the quote outlining CCP's thinking on this approach, because your sperg means nothing?
You're answering like you have a clue, yet you don't unless you can post something from CCP that outlines the reason. Your just pissing in the wind.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Dreamer Targaryen
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 03:14:42 -
[236] - Quote
Not sure if you read this thread, but:
- What will happen, if the industrial structure runs out of fuel? Will the jobs abort, pause or will I just be unable to start new ones?
- Why did you switch away from the easy-to-understand naming-scheme of citadels (alphabetically, sorted by size) to some "all over the place"-system?
|
Queeg Fivehundred
Miranda Regional Technologies
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 03:22:00 -
[237] - Quote
Asking for a clarification:
25% reduction in industrial service module consumption = ? Is that Fuel or ME?
Comment:
Too many medium rigs. How many Indy players out there are going to waste a slot for TE production on a medium complex? I know I sure as hell won't. Save a few minutes or save millions on manufacturing costs?
As it looks, I'm going to need about 6 complexes if I want to stay competitive using rigs for everything I'm building/refining/inventing. I've a very diversified industrialist. This proposed setup is fine if you make only a few things and can specialize. For me, I build bullets to ICS, invent everything smaller than a BC, and refine all sec ore's. It isn't going to be possible anymore to maintain all of this with the structures, fuel, transportation back and forth, and defense. Right now I can do ALL of this in one POS for a fraction of these fuel costs and structure capital costs.
Recommendation:
Medium Rigs: Merge the medium rigs TE and ME just like the large rigs.
Large Rigs: Merge the benefits: i.e. All ships smaller than a BS ME/TE bonus on the same rig, but not to the extreme as the XL rigs. Invention/copy one rig, ME/TE on one rig.
Also - defense of the complex should be comparable...not crippled in comparison to the Citadels. These are bigger targets and will be attacked more as the rewards are greater.
I'm beginning to question the usefulness of a citadel now, if all they are, are a space based storage yard with guns. No other benefits to those they were meant to replace (POS) aside from cloning and market.
I think that there should be a way to link a system citadel to the complexes and future structures to boost defensive and other capabilities. Like a defense or manufacturing bonus if there is a citadel by the same corp in the same system. Larger the citadel, the bigger the bonus. Make it worth building a citadel in the same system as the engineering complex.
|
Esdruxulo
Spicy Onion Rings
1
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 03:29:53 -
[238] - Quote
It's worse than I thought. You not only want to phase out Starbases, but want to replace them for a thing that doesn't drop stuff when destroyed?
CCP, bashing Starbases is content too, and a quite profitable one that gives meaning to highsec PVP. I am very upset that you want to ruin that part of the game.
I want to know if CCP will do something to make up for that, because I won't be plexing half a dozen accounts per month if I won't have use for that anymore. |
gunny Tzestu
Expecto Patronshots
1
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 03:33:54 -
[239] - Quote
wtf, where is the Thukker bonus for low-sec capital production? why would you take that away? |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6452
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 03:35:44 -
[240] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Professor Humbert wrote:Can an engineering complex fit a market service module? nvm, i have no idea You could read the info & attributes on the service module.
Can be fitted to: Fortizar, Keepstar, Upwell Palatine Keepstar |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |