Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Azuse
The Brotherhood Of The Blade Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 11:55:00 -
[61]
Originally by: SpaceBenfish "Sorry guys you can't do that because carriers are not logistics ships"
"Sorry guys you can't do that because carriers are not combat ships they're logistics ships"
"Sorry guys you can't do that because carriers are not logistics ships they're combat ships."
You told the community cans were a bug, you never took steps to rectify, nor were you ever seen to be taking any, this so from our point of view you lied to your customers but more importantly while your ******* around with these ships decide what they do. You say ships are only ment to do one thing, you give carriers bonuses for two task and then you **** it all up publicly, so you implement testing of other ideas but again, you fail to inform the customers and get the same back lash as you did last time. Why was this put on sis and not on your internal server?
Anyone having used the corp hanger in a carrier knows how bad and how slow it is when there are only 10 people in their system. Now after the can gimping last year you're gimping the ships too, so i can understand the haulers (so it isn't actually a logistics ship after all?) but tell me if I'm wrong, putting an assembled, a fitted, combat ship in a carrier but being told it can't actually carry it's own ammunitions in inconstant? So the community is allowed to fit modules but not ammo, smart, real smart. If we can't carry ammo (or anything in the hold) the ability to carry a fully assembled ship is worthless isn't it? Really you want to control what goes in allow unpackaged ship in the ship hanger but reduce it's size PROPORTIONALLY. Ask yourselves what the point is in needing a ship assembled if that additional space is simply wasted.
I don't enjoy fueling towers, or hauling fuel and as i said before i pay for games that amuse me not for the pleaser of having a second job. It comes down to a similar situation as fighters, you make a customers life harder and eventually he's just going to stop paying to be frustrated and bored. And if this does go live expect to see hoarding of resources, pos fuels, on TQ like you never seen before, any change you make to capita class vessels will have a fundamental impact ont he economy.
Where this starts and ends really, is your handling of the situation over the past two years. You introduced carriers two years ago, ship that were supposed to provide front line support and logistics which general got stat at posses. Over time subtle changes moved them away from towers, the hp really got them out on the front lines and triage has become the "panic button" in the lagged systems. Your problem is you have over two years let them grow and have now reached a point where you've decided that they aren't really supposed to be both combat and logistics ships (have you been lying to us for two years?) but are trying to solve your problem through culling rather than pruning. What do i mean? Well look at it this way:
If a gardener was going to spend two years growing a tree he spends each month of those two years pruning and adjusting that tree to his design. He doesn't not leave it for the first year then make a madrid of changes but he most certainly does not then leave it alone for the second year only to return, decide he does not like what it has become and simply hack off all the parts that have grow he doesn't like, usually the tree would die if this happened
Of course carriers won't die if you introduced these changes, they would still be used for what ever task they are best suited but what task is that? Are they for combat or logistics since their bonuses reflect both roles? If i were in your position i would put my money on combat, very few people pay for the thrill of a hulling simulation but that isn't really the issue is it? No, your problem is much simpler. After taking money for two years from your customers it appears your decision makers, your company no longer know what these ships are supposed to do.
[con.] --------------------------
|
Azuse
The Brotherhood Of The Blade Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 11:55:00 -
[62]
[con.]
Any, all, backlash over this has been about the same problem at heart. Our sp are tied to the ships we have trained and ccp has decided to change them. There is fortunately a solution however i personally amn't fond of it however for you it is a much easier choice, implement your changes and loose a portion of your player base (customers/income) or allow the transfer of sp. As much as i hate to mention or draw any compassions to other mmos there is a particular other which has one saving grace alone and that is, when the devs make changes to fundamental core mechanics, giving the player the option to move those sp they have paid and worked for to a different field which will suit them better.
Personally i'm not to fond of the idea but it has spawned several threads over the past 5 days and (grudgingly) has some merit. You've spent the past 5 days reinforcing your view that EvE is all about the choice we make, well now it's ccps turn.
Az --------------------------
|
Raneru
Darwin With Attitude oooh Shiny
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 12:04:00 -
[63]
This is a little annoying as i'll have to contract seperate ships and cargo cans of stuff to my friendly neighborhood carrier pilot. I'll live though..
|
Pilgrippa
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 12:07:00 -
[64]
I wholeheartedly support this nerf. Maybe now pos spamming will require more than 1 guy.
|
Damned Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 12:08:00 -
[65]
No The answer is much simpler and much worts that they don't know for what is this ship...
U trained a year for a carrier, bought skillbooks, invest ISK, Time and money to use it the way it was designed. After 2 years CCP decided we want to hold our customers even longer and they should training new ships, but what to training? Oh yes the new Jump Freighter. Hmm, but not everyone would train for and is too expensive too, so we FORCE the customers do what we want!
Thats all is just about money!!! U payed for something and CCP takes now away to force u to pay for other one.
|
Damned Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 12:10:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Pilgrippa I wholeheartedly support this nerf. Maybe now pos spamming will require more than 1 guy.
I like to see that just looser pirate corps support this change or noobs who never flight a carrier.
|
HotSeat
Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 12:20:00 -
[67]
WTF CCP ... please tell me this was a mistake or bug.
This will crash the T2 / Moon mins / POS market.
How the hell do you think people get fuel too there POS and return mins? Your customer base is going too freak when no one can build all these new T2 ships.
Oh wait, you want people with jump bridges and Titans too control market
Sov 4 is nothing compared to the Power of the Grief !! |
Rooker
Lysian Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 12:23:00 -
[68]
I think it can be boiled down basically to this -
CCP: You will use this ship exactly as we say you will use it, not for anything different and go **** up a rope if you don't like that.
I don't know the reason behind the long parade of nerfs over the last several months. All I can say is that CCP needs to pull their collective head out and stop changing the rules at random. If you repeatedly pull the rug out from under people, eventually they're just going to go stand somewhere else. Ask Sony how well that worked out for them.
-- This Space For Rent |
Lazuran
Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 12:34:00 -
[69]
funny, so carriers with fitted ships in the bay must put the ammo for those ships somewhere else... impressive foresight.
"...been designed for one purpose and one purpose only. Imagine a handful of repair drones pouring from the carebear's mouth. Now imagine they have um, nothing." -Unknown Hel redesigner (2007) |
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 12:54:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Kerfira on 26/10/2007 12:54:31 CCP!
Please take a step back from the nerf-bat, and provide us with this:
1. Outline your vision for how it's supposed to be to live in 0.0. 2. Outline your vision for how it's supposed to be to live in low-sec. 3. Outline your vision for how it's supposed to be to live in high-sec. 4. Outline your vision for how battles are supposed to be. 5. Get a discussion with the community how to achieve this. 6. Modify your vision with the good points raised in the discussion. 7. Outline your plan for how you want to get to that point. 8. Discuss this with the community. 9. Adjust your plan with the good points raised in the discussion. 10. Implement!
All these individual random-looking nerfs/changes that you continuously spring on people doesn't go down well, since we don't know what your vision is! It makes your changes seem random and makes it look like you have no clue to how people actually play the game and uses its features.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
|
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:06:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Lazuran funny, so carriers with fitted ships in the bay must put the ammo for those ships somewhere else... impressive foresight.
1)Which kind of combat ships would you put in the carrier? 2)What is the corp hangar array in a carrier for?
|
Cadiz
Caldari No Quarter. Vae Victis.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:07:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Cadiz on 26/10/2007 13:09:58 ffs, if they REALLY don't want us using carriers for hauling, they could just make it so you can't put industrials & mining barges in the SMA. They were able to do a similar thing (except in reverse) with the Rorqual, so the capability is obviously there. This just makes it immensely frustrating to carry combat-ready ships in the SMA. As others have mentioned, putting more than a few dozen item stacks in a carrier's corp hangar array results in massive lagouts for everybody who tries to open them...not to mention your total client lockup when stuff gets added/removed en masse. Thanks, CCP, for deciding the carrier needs to do a full state update (just like logging in or boarding a new ship!) every time somebody pulls a single mod out of you.
Of course it doesn't change the fact that I was partially placated re: the fighter nerfage by the fact that the carrier SMAs were getting doubled in size. After all, as much as I like to blow stuff up in my carrier, I initially trained into one for the long-range hauling capability; yay for corp logistics. Now I find even that rug torn out from under me as well.
Oh well. Time to bite the bullet and go lay down another uncomfortably large sack of isk on a Rorqual and the skills to use it, I suppose. I imagine the vehement indignation will kick in a few hours down the line; right now I'm probably in too much shock for this to really sink in. ------ Director, No Quarter "There is no problem that cannot be solved by the judicious application of violence." |
Pilgrippa
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:13:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Damned Force
Originally by: Pilgrippa I wholeheartedly support this nerf. Maybe now pos spamming will require more than 1 guy.
I like to see that just looser pirate corps support this change or noobs who never flight a carrier.
Hey I fly a carrier! I am part of a loser pirate corp, so you got me there. Maybe I should have posted with an alt ;)
Yes, the reason I like this nerf is it will force people to expose their valuable assets. I don't think pos were meant to be so easily maintainable. Now it'll be easier to starve em out!
|
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:14:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 26/10/2007 13:14:35
Originally by: Cadiz Edited by: Cadiz on 26/10/2007 13:09:58 ffs, if they REALLY don't want us using carriers for hauling, they could just make it so you can't put industrials & mining barges in the SMA. They were able to do a similar thing (except in reverse) with the Rorqual, so the capability is obviously there. This just makes it immensely frustrating to carry combat-ready ships in the SMA. As others have mentioned, putting more than a few dozen item stacks in a carrier's corp hangar array results in massive lagouts for everybody who tries to open them...not to mention your total client lockup when stuff gets added/removed en masse. Thanks, CCP, for deciding the carrier needs to do a full state update (just like logging in or boarding a new ship!) every time somebody pulls a single mod out of you.
Of course it doesn't change the fact that I was partially placated re: the fighter nerfage by the fact that the carrier SMAs were getting doubled in size. After all, as much as I like to blow stuff up in my carrier, I initially trained into one for the long-range hauling capability; yay for corp logistics. Now I find even that rug torn out from under me as well.
Oh well. Time to bite the bullet and go lay down another uncomfortably large sack of isk on a Rorqual and the skills to use it, I suppose. I imagine the vehement indignation will kick in a few hours down the line; right now I'm probably in too much shock for this to really sink in.
I never tried it, so i need a short info to comment that: Can you put Secure cans with stuff inside in the corp hangar array of a carrier?
|
Cadiz
Caldari No Quarter. Vae Victis.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:16:00 -
[75]
Edited by: Cadiz on 26/10/2007 13:16:35
Originally by: Benn Helmsman I never tried it, so i need a short info to comment that: Can you put Secure cans with stuff inside in the corp hangar array of a carrier?
For now, yes, but you need to move them to your cargo hold (NOT the hangar array) if you want to take stuff out of them. Watch them nerf that out as well when they realize they missed a few spots. ------ Director, No Quarter "There is no problem that cannot be solved by the judicious application of violence." |
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:19:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Cadiz Edited by: Cadiz on 26/10/2007 13:16:35
Originally by: Benn Helmsman I never tried it, so i need a short info to comment that: Can you put Secure cans with stuff inside in the corp hangar array of a carrier?
For now, yes, but you need to move them to your cargo hold (NOT the hangar array) if you want to take stuff out of them. Watch them nerf that out as well when they realize they missed a few spots.
Well uberly easy solution: Lets say you have 10 ships inside you maintenance bay, to be prepared, just put 10 named (after the ship it belongs to obviously) secured cans in the corp hangar array. You take out the ship, take 1 can and you are ready to fight... sry but if that is to hard you should try to work with ships from a carrier.
|
Damned Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:20:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Damned Force on 26/10/2007 13:20:47
Originally by: Pilgrippa
Originally by: Damned Force
Originally by: Pilgrippa I wholeheartedly support this nerf. Maybe now pos spamming will require more than 1 guy.
I like to see that just looser pirate corps support this change or noobs who never flight a carrier.
Hey I fly a carrier! I am part of a loser pirate corp, so you got me there. Maybe I should have posted with an alt ;)
Yes, the reason I like this nerf is it will force people to expose their valuable assets. I don't think pos were meant to be so easily maintainable. Now it'll be easier to starve em out!
There is nothing easy in the pos maintanence. Is hard and boring work to position cynoships, open cyno, sitting duck...... It take time to get into the bubble.... There are many places where u could attack the carrier or the cynoship, sure thats need more work than sitting by a bubble and just F1-F8 on everything jumping trough
|
Matrixcvd
Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:23:00 -
[78]
CCP Who is your daddy, and what does he do? You have lost your marbles and these changes or potential changes are screwing with the minimization of the boring aspects of this game. if you think this will limit the roles of the large alliances in this game YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN! This will only further consolidate power and form even larger alliances to prevent the loss thru derliction of system sov.... utter crap
|
Varrakk
Chosen Path
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:24:00 -
[79]
Seriously, does the CCP-staff actually play this game anymore? Atleast the way we(as in its customers) play it. Here we have another idiot nerf with epic side effects.
Individual players: Not everyone has a carrier. Getting replacements and supplies for the average player is very time consuming, and will most often get you killed going to or from your sorley needed supplies. Carrier people, as MMO's intended to be. Help those, by getting them their equipment.
And before you say, use the corp hangar. Sorry lads, but its often filled with fuel. Some distances too far, for the pathetic cargoholds in a carrier to hold it all. Then theres cyno jammers, and we need to drag with us 2-3k ozone as well.
For the alliances: Keeping POS's fueled beyond 1region worth of space, is going to be a full time JOB for multiple players. This is a game, a simulation of chores. Fuel a POS can be "fun" 2 or 3 times, after that it becomes a tedious chore. Multiply this with 100-2000 depending on alliance sizes.
Jump freighters you say? 1) No fittings, cap recharging for jumps is yet another unwanted time sink. 2) Slow, cyno in from outside a POS shield. Then slowboat over to the tower, 30km+ at 80-120m/s (granted your cap is full by the time you get there) 3) Insane prices! 6-8billions pricetag. 4) Defenceless, in addition to wasting peoples time needlessly. You now need people to defend this thing, while you do your mindlessly boring job.
Good ****ing work!
|
Cadiz
Caldari No Quarter. Vae Victis.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:25:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Benn Helmsman Well uberly easy solution: Lets say you have 10 ships inside you maintenance bay, to be prepared, just put 10 named (after the ship it belongs to obviously) secured cans in the corp hangar array. You take out the ship, take 1 can and you are ready to fight... sry but if that is to hard you should try to work with ships from a carrier.
Unfortunately, that entire idea severely cuts into the spare fuel capacity of a carrier...not to mention it is a hassle that requires people to go around with unused space in their carriers simply so they have room to move their fuel out of the cargo hold and into the hangar array.
The far more elegant solution here is simply DON'T LET US PUT INDYS & BARGES IN THE SMA. Seriously, they do it for combat ships on the Rorq, so we know this is possible to code. I thought CCP had learned their goddamned lesson from POS SMAs already? ------ Director, No Quarter "There is no problem that cannot be solved by the judicious application of violence." |
|
Pytria Le'Danness
Placid Reborn
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:26:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Kira's Shadow
/tifoil hat mode on
So Bob unveil another Titan, and leave three regions full of outposts (like 40-50+ outposts?) in a surprising move, and less than 48 hours after this huge nerf to logistics is found in Sisi... Do I see a pattern?
/tinfoil hat mode off
And that IMO is the biggest problem with what t20 did - every move that is being made by CCP will now be viewed through the "And how will BoB benefit from this?" glasses. I have to admit that something like that was the first thing that went through my mind too when I read about the carrier nerfs. "Oh, they have fulfilled their purpose for our friends, now let's dull them down a bit."
Can I borrow your tinfoil hat please?
Corporation RP channel: "PlacidReborn" |
Necronomicon
Caldari KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:26:00 -
[82]
Remember guys, this will only nerf entities who do not have a titan, so it does not matter.
Carlsberg dont make Eve Pilots, but if they did, i wouldnt be one of them.
|
Darpz
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:52:00 -
[83]
this is more game breaking than the compression nerf
this is more game breaking than the carrier fighter nerf
do you guys even play this game?
|
Papion
Huff and Puff
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 14:02:00 -
[84]
i support this change and you can keep the ammo in your corperate hangar in your carrier
|
Delichon
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 14:02:00 -
[85]
Ok, I am a noob, I don't fly (and never intend to, for the love of God) a carrier. But I will try to express my thoughts nonetheless. Everything below is my humbleoppinion and does not represent the opinions of anybody but myself.
Now we see, that carriers are getting a) reduced concentrated damage potential in fight, b) reduced ability to move freight. Next, I'd guess, we will see a nerf of logistic ability of a carrier.
Why does CCP do it?
Damage pontential. From the look of things I think Battleships are as far as CCP is willing to go in terms of DPS produced by 1 source. Dreads are mostly for POS and Capital warfare, Titans have DD(but it's different) Carriers are getting nerfed. I think I can actually understand the intentions behind it. If a mean DPS machine would become available and would produce a concentrated damage of, say, 3000 DPS, than BS will become extinct from the 0.0 warfare. Even high SP cap will not help - as with the carriers setting a high SP cap just postpones the problem. Just imagine - a "WTFOMGBBQ" ship class is introduced, it can dish out 3000 DPS to BS-sized targets, costs XX bil and takes 1 year to train. In a year we see 40-man blobs of "WTFOMGBBQ" ships attacking one another and no battleships (because nobody is willing to take the chances and endanger the gang - and when you are not willing to take the chances, you blob with the best you've got) Newbs whine that in order to be noticed in 0.0 warfare they have to train to "WTFOMGBBQ" ships.
So the only possible path for CCP is to produce something that produces a lot of DPS, but that these DPS are not concentrated. This way a 40 man blob of dispearce damage dealers does not provide a same result as above, because it would take a lot of FC skill to consentrate this disperced DPS on the enemy.
This is IMHO the purpose of the fighter nerf.
Freight.
Now on to the freight. I see comments that reducing freight capabilities of carriers will triple the amount of work a person should do to maintain POS. I doubt that CCP failed to realise that. I think the amount of work to maintain POS was meant to be a) high b) to require a special character. When carriers decreased the amount of work below the level CCP liked it to be and allowed to use fighter charactes for that, CCP most likely thought "well, there aren't that many carriers, they don't influence the game this much"
Well, now there are that many carriers and they do influence the game much. So since I assume the amount of time that is currently spent on maintaining POS was meant to be either higher and it was meant to be decreased by using a specialized character, CCP nerfed (not yet, but will likely do in the nearest future) the carriers freight capability.
I do think it is absurd to think of CCP as of people, who are incapable of thinking a step ahead and anticipating the conequences of their actions. They are still human though and they are doomed to make mistakes at times. But this time I think the whole issue makes anough sense to conclude that CCP does not "make random mindless nerfs" but are truly bringing the game in order with their vision of the game.
Best regards, Deli
|
Kay Han
Caldari Friendship 7 Corporation STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 14:06:00 -
[86]
skills needed to fly a carrier > massive amount of isk time invested to train the skills > 3/4 year and still training
getting nerfed by ccp > priceless
TBFH What kind of dope are you guys smoking? i really think you should change it. nerfing fighters.. ok. iŠm not happy with it. but ok. This nerf now. makes carriers total useless.
How about removing the ship mant array? just make them Bigger logistics... that would be cool
i really hope that all the stuff happening currently are jokes even if we donŠt have 1st of april yet.
Originally by: CCP Atropos Personally I think Amarr ships should consume slaves in a similar way that other ships consume ammunition.
|
Cadiz
Caldari No Quarter. Vae Victis.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 14:12:00 -
[87]
Edited by: Cadiz on 26/10/2007 14:14:58
Originally by: Delichon Freight.
Now on to the freight. I see comments that reducing freight capabilities of carriers will triple the amount of work a person should do to maintain POS. I doubt that CCP failed to realise that. I think the amount of work to maintain POS was meant to be a) high b) to require a special character. When carriers decreased the amount of work below the level CCP liked it to be and allowed to use fighter charactes for that, CCP most likely thought "well, there aren't that many carriers, they don't influence the game this much"
Well, now there are that many carriers and they do influence the game much. So since I assume the amount of time that is currently spent on maintaining POS was meant to be either higher and it was meant to be decreased by using a specialized character, CCP nerfed (not yet, but will likely do in the nearest future) the carriers freight capability.
I do think it is absurd to think of CCP as of people, who are incapable of thinking a step ahead and anticipating the conequences of their actions. They are still human though and they are doomed to make mistakes at times. But this time I think the whole issue makes anough sense to conclude that CCP does not "make random mindless nerfs" but are truly bringing the game in order with their vision of the game.
Best regards, Deli
If CCP wants people to spend more time on fueling POSes, then they need to redo the goddamn sov mechanics so you don't need dozens of POSes to do anything worthwhile. Logistics is not fun. Logistics is never fun. It's exceptionally tedious stuff, and 99 out of 100 people who do it (who are themselves a tiny fraction of the population) do it not out of enjoyment, but because of necessity.
Basically, the logistics guys are the backbone on which the entire 0.0 playing field - EVE's shining crown jewel of epic player warfare & politics - is built. Without their labours, there is nothing. This is not overstatement, this is simple, absolute fact. By kidneypunching the whole damned lot of them and slapping them in the face with a brutally high cost of entry (hi2u jump freighter), all they're doing is making people throw their hands up in their and say "screw it, screw you, I'm going back to low-sec and am going to gank mission runners all day". After all, the logistics people like to go out and shoot stuff/mine/whatever in their spare time, too. Increasing the time investment required to keep 0.0 logistics up & operational just decreases the amount of time people can spend actually doing whatever it is they enjoy in EVE, which is a profoundly boneheaded move.
Stealth low-sec buff in disguise, maybe?
People who say 0.0 logistics should be more difficult are either masochists who believe one's worth is defined by how willing you are to have your balls stomped on for hours on end, or are people who have never done it. ------ Director, No Quarter "There is no problem that cannot be solved by the judicious application of violence." |
Porks
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 14:17:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Cadiz People who say 0.0 logistics should be more difficult are either masochists who believe one's worth is defined by how willing you are to have your balls stomped on for hours on end, or are people who have never done it.
Truest statement ever posted.
And yes, the rorqual has been smacked by the same nerfbat.
|
Arenis Xemdal
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 14:32:00 -
[89]
Oh god finally, FINALLY.
With this move, carriers will go from being the most horribly overpowered ship in EVE, to a gloriously balanced beacon of eternal enlightenment. I love you CCP. I LOVE YOU AND IT HURTS TO ADMIT IT GRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH :(
|
Audri Fisher
Caldari VentureCorp Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 14:33:00 -
[90]
this is a stealth boost to amarr.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |