| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 72 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 22 post(s) |
Korinne
The Partisan Brigade
Republic Alliance
13
   |
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:39:00 -
[631] - Quote
Another thought on the capital ship issue. While any sane/competent/cautious person would wait till they are properly skilled to use a capital ship; that is often not necessary to turn the tide of many battle when they reach that scale. Just the presence of an extra carrier/dread on the field can play a big role both in the percieved threat and in morale, and there is no way for the attackers to know that the pilot of the Thanatos that just undocked has **** poor skills, then just know what that Thanny CAN do. So yes, while knocking off one 30 day skill doesn't mean that you can be a good cap pilot instantly, it does make a bigger difference than can be easily downplayed. |
Andrea Griffin
170
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:39:00 -
[632] - Quote
I am excited at the prospect of a Drone/TD Amarr Battleship.
CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer. |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain
Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1027
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:39:00 -
[633] - Quote
There should not be free skill points awarded. This should be done like previously.
Skill points from trained skills which are removed should be reimposed and value of those skill books returned as isk.
Players can then choose how to redistribute their points how they like. They don't even need to put them back to ship skills if they don't want.
It is likely that some won't be able to fly all racial variants after this before some additional training, but in the end this will be same for everyone.
Any other method will cause more harm than this one. Extra skillpoints for some will cause jita protest or worse.
Get |
Obsidiana
White-Noise
104
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:40:00 -
[634] - Quote
Dear CCP Ytterbium / CCP Soundwave (if you see this),
First, thanks for the "heads up" and development direction. After reading the devblog post, I understand that this is a part of a renovation of the current ship system. That answers my "Why this?" question. The next patch coming answers my "Why now?" question.
My remaining question is this: Is there anyway that this track could be made less linear?
As stated, the extra training time to get into a battleship is undesirable. (Personally, destroyers are a waste of my time.) Right now things do branch out, but only at the final capital level. Doesn't this seem imbalanced and top heavy? My hope is that this leads to new ship paths, but I doubt that is what you are ready to start thinking about. That said, what should the next logical step after battlecruisers be?
My advice is this: If you are going to renovate, go the extra mile to do it right and don't plan on coming back later.
Yes, this means I'm suggesting even more radical changes to the ship paths, but I think you should start with roles and work down from there. You are retrofitting a good idea onto a very old one from days when Eve was a fresh, new, and (in ways) derivative game. It has grown into a game that others now mimic. If the game were new, and you knew what you knew now, what you have done differently? Wouldn't you have role skills and then ships that used them?
In terms of roles, I believe that what helps to make T2 ships have such defined roles it their extra bonuses. I think a third bonus would make it easier for you to define the roles of T1 ships. As for T2, already you are seeing ships with extra bonuses beyond the basic 4. Even T1 ships are getting role bonuses. What if role skills determined role bonuses (unrequired to fly, but useful if you have it)? Such skills could span ship classes and even races. Just my personal thought, but also an observation.
Beyond that, I really hope you factor in cross-training. Right now, these changes will remove racial links and create racial divides. The simplicity of your diagrams mask the complexity of what people actually fly. I really would like to see some new ideas here (such as the role skill). Right now I just want you to be aware of the deeper problems this will be creating. |
Voith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:40:00 -
[635] - Quote
I like the changes as they are described.
I like the pubbie tears even more.
|
Tashanaka
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:40:00 -
[636] - Quote
Several things going on in that post thus I have mixed feelings.
1- Removing the tiers for T1 ships (aka: Buffing hulls that no one flies) = good and would hopefully bring a greater variety of hulls in space.
2- "Re-balancing" ships reads like nerfing popular ships to me. IE: T3's (make them worse than faction cruisers?!?!) and other well performing hulls like the Drake. = BAD BAD BAD :twisted:
3- Making the training tree more clear = mostly good (BAD if we have to train all the races BC and Dessy skills!) Sounds like it's time to make sure I have the Frig & Cruisers for all races to at least 4... /sigh
4- Making it take longer to train into some ships = Bad-ish. EVE is already a timesink skill intensive game for "new" players. Pushing training up even higher seems counter-productive to bringing in more new players.
5- Not too sure on the new skills for "Ship Lines" especially if these new "Ship Line" skills have no meaning beyond T1 ships. Or will they just tack on more requirements for T2/T3 (IE: Interceptor requires Attack & Support) There is already a ton of support skills for Capacitor, CPU, Armor, Shields, Guns, Missiles, etc needed to maximize a ships potential. I don't see a benefit (other than a timesink) for these new skills. Again, this seems counter-productive to bringing in more new players.
TLDR:
- Making the skill paths more clear and intuitive =good
- Making it take even longer to trin = bad (From a vet point of view it's more or less 6's)
- Buff under performing hulls without nerfing ones that do perform well
|
Malache
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:41:00 -
[637] - Quote
I would support this change if there was more than one type of destroyer for each race.
As it stands now the destroy skill is not fun to train past 1 as a newb. There is no potential upgrade to your destroyer. |
Maxpie
Metaphysical Utopian Society Explorations
52
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:41:00 -
[638] - Quote
I really don't like this term 'progression' I see a lot in the blog. There shouldn't be a 'right' way to play Eve. I prefer the skill system to be a bit quirky, requiring more thought and planning, as opposed to 'progressing' to the next ship I'm supposed to get into. |
Baneken
Hyvat Pahat ja Eric
The Polaris Syndicate
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:42:00 -
[639] - Quote
What ever as long as we still need BS V for capital ships or change the requirement for advanced ss command and reimburse accordingly. |
None ofthe Above
108
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:43:00 -
[640] - Quote
Seraph Razgriz wrote:As a new player(relatively in eve) here are my views.
If you give people who have trained battle cruiser five all the racial battle cruiser fives, then my training time to get to the same level as that person who was maybe only a month older then me, is now multiplied by four. he went for command ships right away, i took my time, and now to get to the same level as him, i have to train for four months to be at the same level as a guy who trained for one month.
IF you do the whole, what you fly yesterday you fly today. implying that you will get all battle cruiser fives if you had it trained before the switch.
Its not fair if you dont do that. and its not fair if you do.
and capitals. Yes, they are T1, but only needing battleship four? that doesnt feel right. they are capital ships, they shouldnt be a walk in the park to get into. Hey, it would be awesome not to train battleship five, but at the same time..... i should have to.
What about those who only trained battleship five on races PURELY to get a carrier? will they get their battleship five allocated back to them?
This is my point. There is no "making everyone happy" on this one.
I can appreciate that this fixes one of the weirdnesses of the skill tree and probably does make the job of totally new players understanding the skill progression easier (the only valid reason to do this I've thought of so far), but am really not sure that justifies the chaos and butt-hurt that this is sure to cause.
And to reask my question (apologies if its been answered in this torrent of comments)
Was CSM consulted on this and what did they say?
Even None ofthe Above supports Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM7! |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
Late Night Alliance
2023
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:43:00 -
[641] - Quote
10/10 CCP has officially just trolled all the CSM7 candidates, by dropping the most colossal steaming heap of a pile of issues to discuss a day before the polls begin. They're clearly testing our ability to handle unexpected news!
I'm writing up some *words*, Its going to take me a few because I want to give it its treatment. There's a hundred things to comment on here, and I'm already 30 pages behind!
Missed an interview or debate? Check my CSM7 blog for details.
Many thanks to all of my friends and supporters for the kind words! |
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:44:00 -
[642] - Quote
This thread has led me to a horrifying medical conclusion:
Prolonged exposure to large EMP smartbomb radiation at or near the Rancer gate causes brain cancer!
Acute symptoms in 100% of the posts by "the united" in this thread should be statistically significant and proof enough. CCP, you're messing with the health of your customers here. Fix this ASAP!
Rivur'Tam wrote:wow another waste of time
if you can fly a ship now u should be after this bullshit if u do this u will need to give me amarr and gall bc lv5
why not let us respc sp once a year for a plex
Edit: Personal attack removed, CCP Phantom
Insomnium wrote:IF YOU DO THIS I WILL HAVE TO SPEN 3 MONTHS TRAINING TO BE IN TEH SAME POSTION IAM NOW
IS THIS ATRICK TO GET MORE SUBS FROM US
N3oXr2ii wrote:This is such an awful idea you cannot make us do months of training for nothing its a joke and an excuse to get extra money for us just let us respc sp once a year for a plex
taht will give u extra cash and make us love u not spit in anger
Emissary K'Ehleyr wrote:one of the worst things you have thought of and trust me that is along list you should improve the game not make it worse this won't help anyone the only thing it will gain is get yopu more money for subs end of
Russir wrote: agreed DO NOT DO THIS ITS ******* STUIPED
|
thoth rothschild
First Aid Emergency Service
67
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:44:00 -
[643] - Quote
You got my full support. My philosophie as you might know is
"Change is good, stagnation is bad"
The basic idea is awesome!
Also i really thank you for accepting ideas for new modules. the combination of this will bring a new adventure feeling to eve which we lost after we got vets.
good job +thumbsup+
|
Kitt JT
Crimson Empire.
Nulli Secunda
22
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:44:00 -
[644] - Quote
The problem i see is here:
People are always talking about the dispairity between vets and noobs.
Won't new players now have a longer training time, thus taking even longer to skill up for things?
To be honest, i think that idea is a step in the wrong direction
A better solution might be having different bonuses apply to ships (bonuses not requirements)
Say for example a raven requires caldari battleship 3 to fly.
However, it gets a bonus from each level of caldari battleship
It gets a bonus from each level of caldari cruiser
It gets a bonus from each level of caldari frigate
yes, ships will have more bonuses, but you could mitigate them. Example, maybe the frigate bonus is a 2% to say agility, or missile velocity, or w/e.
Furthermore, i think there should be less "manditory" skills to train to level 5
Obviously fitting skills and such are always important to train to 5, but i mean requirements.
And no, i'm not saying that t2 ships should have reduced ship requirements (i think recons should require racial cruiser 5 for example)
What I'm talking about is skills like "advanced spaceship command"
Why is advanced spaceship command 5 a requirement for capital ships?
Would it not make sense to have the requirement at 4? or even 1? or not at all?
The point is that its an extra 30 day skill that everybody flying carriers and dreads has to train, that doesn't really change anything (as everyone gets it) its a pointless filler-skill.
Similarly, jump drive operation.
Jump drive operation 5 is a requirement for JDC.
Fleets will NOT let anybody fly with them without JDC 4 (although JDC 5 requirement is becoming more common).
Its another needless 30 day skill that has no progression (you really don't have an extra 30 day skill that EVERYBODY needs for ALL capitals)
And lets be clear here. I think capitals are a good thing. Capitals are great ships. Capitals are fun to shoot. Capitals are easilly kill-able by BS fleets.
Its SUPERCAPITALS that everyone hates. |
Vedje
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:45:00 -
[645] - Quote
This seems very brave
A lot room for mistakes, errors etc.
But if implemented right it might open up a whole new world.
I agree that balancing was needed ages ago and if that is what this improvements
should bring about i am very excited.
Best of luck ccp, and please don't f.. this up, there's so much that might go wrong here. |
stoicfaux
767
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:45:00 -
[646] - Quote
Freighters will be more common since you only need industrial IV under the proposed system. Which could have an interesting effect on the market.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1097
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:46:00 -
[647] - Quote
Tinkietoo wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Messilina wrote:VaL Iscariot wrote:Thanks for dumbing the game down, CCP. You guys pull that **** with Capitals, Command Ships, and Battlecruisers, I'm done. I'm not spending four months training up all the battlecruisers to 5 and I really don't appreciate you 'streamlining' this game so a bunch of new fags can understand it better. Kick them in the ass and tell them to read a mother ******* book and stop giving away hand outs. Battleship V should be a requirement to fly a ******* capital ship. Comparing that to the progression to a Hulk places high in my top 5 boneheaded things CCP has said.
You should be making this game harder, not easier. Think about that before you **** everything up... again. Agreed. It becomes ever more obvious that the devs don't play eve, or at least they don't pvp, which is just as damning. All that is obvious is that you two have serious reading comprehension issues. "If you can fly it today, you'll be able to fly it tomorrow." You have serious comprehension issues for failing to understand the original point and then commenting anyway.
I understand his point perfectly, and stand by mine. 
Skill points will be allocated so that you do not have to retrain anything you can currently fly.
Reimbursements will be granted for anything unnecessary you trained under the old system.
Continuity in the skill tree's is good game design, not "dumbing down" anything.
I think that about covers it... unless you feel that the insignificant amount of time spent to train BS 5 actually matters compared to the time spent learning how to practically fly a cap. If so then 
When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
Korinne
The Partisan Brigade
Republic Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:48:00 -
[648] - Quote
thoth rothschild wrote:My philosophie as you might know is
"Change is good, stagnation is bad"
This is so asinine it makes my head hurt. I have an idea, lets start all walking on our hands for a change. It's a change so it must be good. Just because something isn't broken doesn't mean that it is 'stagnant'. |
GrusomeGeir
Ganja Labs
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:48:00 -
[649] - Quote
On the Skilltree changes:
Wow... I really hope you guys gives this ALOT of tought. Because if you think that Incarna thingy was bad, this has the potential of turning into something way worse.
Take everyone who was upset about WiS not coming, and then add the rest of EVE.... thats how many people are gonna be upset about this if it goes wrong.
I'm not saying I don't think you guys know what your doing.. i'm just saying PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD GET THIS RIGHT!!!!
On the ship/tier changes:
So, how much are you guys looking to change the ship stats in order to achieve this?
Change ships that aren't beeing used, LEAVE the ones that are.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1097
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:48:00 -
[650] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:As a veteran, I feel I must be bitter about this, regardless of what the changes are all about and how they will affect me.
Nothing personal, it's in the global rules of MMO participation that all changes are to be despised and fought against with all kinds of bitter hatred and rhetoric, going to ALL CAPS if necessary per the Geneva Convention.
Reading about the actual changes is not even required.
So... uh...... let me begin....
These changes suck. They will ruin the game. My brothers sisters cousins roommate with the 25 accounts is going to unsub and single-handedly bankrupt CCP. Armies of darkness will march across the face of the earth and puppies will be sad all because of CCP, and .....Marsha Marsha Marsha!
Forgive me if I missed anything.
You win the thread!
When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
Carl Hinken
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:49:00 -
[651] - Quote
No sir, I don't like it. Certain things should be left alone. To be blunt, I do NOT trust you to not mess this up CCP.
First off, I don't believe you won't screw up the 1 skills to 4 skills SP reimbursement. You can't realistically give those of us who have destroyers 5 and BC 5 the extra 6m SP just so we can continue flying what we already fly. It'll be a huge advantage to incoming new players.
Secondly, BS4 for a capital ship? Seriously? They're a capital ship. For many people they're close to if not end-game goals. They should NOT be BS4, period. Do super caps need BS5 at least?
Thirdly, what about all the other generic skills? You know, crazy things like the T2 ship skills, the capital ship skill, etc? Will we now need to tale out an extra 360m for Gallente Capital Ship, Amarr Capital Ship, etc. If you're going to do this, you should at least be consistent on how you handle EVERY ship skill.
In short, you made a mistake when you implemented the Destroyer and BC skills, now you're going to screw things up trying to fix them. Not a great plan. I guess all of these changes you've been making have been you buttering us up for this dreadful, awful, horrible change. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
Late Night Alliance
2025
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:49:00 -
[652] - Quote
Basically my TL:DR is - The spirit and direction here are great - arbitrary numbered tiers are silly, ship roles and logical progression of skills just makes sense. Some of the specifics here are just crazy bad, however.
I'll give you one for starters (i'm sure its been said already having not read the 30 pages yet):
BS IV TO TRAIN CARRIERS IS BAD, BAD, BAD. CCP, DON'T DO THIS. We do not need underprepared pilots in carriers. At that ship size level, we need srs bizness fleet members.
Missed an interview or debate? Check my CSM7 blog for details.
Many thanks to all of my friends and supporters for the kind words! |
Derth Ramir
Hellion Evolution
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:50:00 -
[653] - Quote
Can someone please shut up all the mindless humans that are posting about how they are going to be forced to retrain for the new skills. If you guys took a few minutes to read you would find out CCP stated they would reimburse properly. |
Endeavour Starfleet
685
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:52:00 -
[654] - Quote
Looks like the drake nerf will happen after all.
Quote:Bombardment ships: provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal.
Quote:Combat ships: designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller.
The fact that the Drake had the best defense and average DPS was the entire point. Now they will just be alpha bait. And never used considering that FCs are going to be preferring insta long range anyway.
With the increased DPS inside Lvl4s these days noobs will yet again lose access to stuff that will keep them in the game. |
Korinne
The Partisan Brigade
Republic Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:53:00 -
[655] - Quote
Carl Hinken wrote: Certain things should be left alone. To be blunt, I do NOT trust you to not mess this up CCP.
I trust CCP to take care of this as much as I trust a meth head in my ammonia warehouse and as much as I trust a Muslim parent with a beheading implement around his daughters and/or wives. |
ReK42
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:55:00 -
[656] - Quote
I'm cautiously optimistic about these changes. However, there are a couple issues with the transition that need to be addressed. Specifically, SP refunds for people who trained skills only because they were a pre-requisite. An example of this would be a supercarrier pilot who has Battleship 5 for the sole reason that it was required to inject carrier. That is now nearly 1.5 million SP that is completely wasted on a pilot that will never leave his supercarrier to fly a subcap. Another example would be a combat pilot who trained Mining Barge 5 solely for the logistical utility of a Rorqual which he never actually mines with, or flies mining barges or exhumers.
I truly hope that CCP takes this opportunity to learn from their previous mistakes handling transitions (eg: fuel blocks) and provides some form of optional SP refund for pilots who would otherwise be stuck in this situation. An optional refund would require a large amount of work on the part of the GMs handling the requests but it needs to be done. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1097
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:56:00 -
[657] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Looks like the drake nerf will happen after all. Quote:Bombardment ships: provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal. Quote:Combat ships: designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller. The fact that the Drake had the best defense and average DPS was the entire point. Now they will just be alpha bait. And never used considering that FCs are going to be preferring insta long range anyway. With the increased DPS inside Lvl4s these days noobs will yet again lose access to stuff that will keep them in the game.
Perhaps you should consider that "noobs" really shouldn't have a dirt cheap, quickly trained for ship that can allow them to waltz through Level 4 missions with impunity.
When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
Svennig
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
70
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:56:00 -
[658] - Quote
Gynoceros wrote:You are in Dreddit. Don't you want more newbs in Frigates?  The faction frigate skills are used for the most basic ships in the game, so I think it makes sense to change them to rank one. Plus it gives new players a sense of accomplishment to move up the Frigate -> Cruiser skill chain even faster while still keeping the overall skill requirements pretty much the same.
Sure, and if Dreddit were the only corp and Test the only Alliance in the game then I'd be all for it. But the game is more than one corp with a newbie focus and an alliance with an emphasis on screwing around, so it helps to think about these things from a broader perspective.
|
Bilaz
Fremen Sietch
DarkSide.
23
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:58:00 -
[659] - Quote
well after 10 mitutes of initial rage im ready to post some comments
racial battlecruiser skills make sense, but i dont want to train all 4 to 5 on all my chars AGAIN [:evil:
as for tier elimination - its a good idea, but your role summury is completly wrong. While part of me wants to write a thousand words on where and how you are wrong - i would rather write what i think is closer to truth
first of all roles depend on size of your fleet. Fos solo you generaly have brawlers and kiters - brawlers are capable to overtank and overdamage all opposition they expect to see - mostly armor tanked ships, but you can do that with haml drake or active mael and such, kiters are capable to dictate preffered range to hostiles - distance where they can outdamage and tackle enemy and enemy cannot do **** - obvious example is cynabal.
But both of them must be capable of scouting and tackling their targets. This makes brawler class (and thus most armor based ships) not usable as true soloships unless you dont mind losing them every 10 jumps to a random camp/gang
Second point is that damage for some reason is "great" for all damage dealing types - is not as important as ability to inflict it. For instance 1000+ dps blaster boats are useless when properly tackled by something from afar, and pathetic 350 dps from drake on 50 km was much more than you could get from other bc's and cruisers (and it hits better than most long range weapons) - but then you introduced tier 3 bc and drake is no longer king of the hill. point is - you cant make roles not taking damage dealing potential in mind - some ships may be general damage dealers (close, long or middle range and apropriate tracking), some may provide tackle and damage, some may serve as antisupport - killing targets that not being killed by main gang
third point is that calling non damage dealing roles as support is wrong - becouse damage dealing ships can participate in doing almost everything specialized ships are doing: tacking (webs and such), tactical advantage (scouting, bubbles, (smart)bombs, scan, cyno), e-war, support (cap, shield, armor, hull transfers, gang bonuses
And i would prefer to have different but not overly specialized ships -pvp in eve is evolving every day and bonuses and roles ccp devised in 5+ years ago - now no longer looking interesting. Puls its obvious that you make balance like goverments make laws and we as criminals have lots of keen minds and lots of time to devise a way to break them. So you cant possiby make perfect balance (or law) - but you can correct holes when they become obvious. for instance before lag nerf it was not that obvious that t3 ships are two-three times better than their damage dealing counterparts and can humiliate even huge battleship fleets in different ways, |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1097
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:58:00 -
[660] - Quote
Quote:We do not need underprepared pilots in carriers.
What on earth would make you say a thing like that?
When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 72 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |