| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Omara Otawan
   |
Posted - 2009.01.25 02:09:00 -
[91]
 Originally by: Ephemeron
The people who still think Falcons are perfectly balanced need to get a reality check.
Tbh, I think you need a reality check if you think they arent balanced.
Remember CCP actually boosted the falcon not so long ago? Good luck waiting for a nerf, not gonna happen anytime soon...
|
Psiri
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 02:20:00 -
[92]
Edited by: Psiri on 25/01/2009 02:20:39
This is effectively just a nerf to their jamming strength and a marginal one of their range. Why would one fit several of these, just to then have to sacrifice mids for a tank to prevent getting insta-popped? May just aswell reduce the range and jamming strenth bonus instead (a simple solution which I'd be fine with).
I'd rather just change ECM altogether, make it non-chance based and give it diminishing effect for every additional target you try to jam (caused by further stress on the ship's CPU). For each successful jam (your jamming strength overriding the target's sensor strength, naturally values would have to be adjusted for this) your jamming strength on that target would also diminish.
I'd like to see ECM boats having to be careful with what they jam and to rid them of the whole chance based ordeal. In order to jam a BS a Falcon should have to divert all its resources at that task, being able to keep it jammed for 30-40 seconds. After that he can swap to a medium sized target for around 60-80 seconds. Alternatively he would be able to jam two cruiser sized targets but due to the diminishing jammer strength when jamming multiple targets, along with the diminishing effects of multiple cycles he shouldn't be able to keep them jammed for more than a single cycle.
|
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 03:23:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: Ephemeron
The people who still think Falcons are perfectly balanced need to get a reality check.
Tbh, I think you need a reality check if you think they arent balanced.
Remember CCP actually boosted the falcon not so long ago? Good luck waiting for a nerf, not gonna happen anytime soon...
Do you deny the truth of anything I said in the previous post?
If yes, please point out specific case.
Maybe you question my experience as PvP pilot? My experience with Falcons? There are public killboards that can put those questions to rest. I have a Falcon alt myself - maxed out skills, more than 1 year experience.
My falcon alt char is also experience in operation of Amarr and Minmatar recons, so I have something to compare against first hand, as well and the 100s of times I encounter them in hostile gangs. It doesn't get any more real than what I experience. And I am not a fan of nerfing things - proof available in numerous posts I made warning CCP against dangers of abusing nerf power. If I say that Falcons need to be nerfed, it is with outmost caution and as last resort. Even then I'm open to possibility of balancing things out by unnerfing other recons - which is a bit extreme but at least it's not nerfing |
Joss Sparq
Caldari
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 04:37:00 -
[94]
Edited by: Joss Sparq on 25/01/2009 04:40:10
Originally by: Ephemeron
It would still be operating within 50-80 KM ranges, which is pretty damn safe
And nobody forces you to fight at closer range. If you prefer safety of 140km attack, by all means, just don't expect to perma-jamm 3 ships at once
... with no tank and no real DPS either, yeah right whatever 
Okay, so:
People have been whining noticeably about the Falcon (for me) since a short time after the script "balance" to RSDs when the public began to realize that ECM was now the "best" electronic warfare and that hulls flavored with such a bonus were now the best to fly and have only been whining slightly more intensely since the Falcon got a very meagre increase over the old jammer strength bonus it had and it was dragged up and more into line with the Rook as a result of which.
In other words, just because they suddenly couldn't see the "Rook" coming made it all that much worse when it did.
Okay, I don't really like the script idea insofar as how it was implemented and the effects it then had on the Arazu and Lachesis (not forgetting Tracking Disruptors either) and I don't entirely like how the Falcon has become the Rook with a cloak (or that the Rook lost a high slot afterwards) but quite frankly I think people need to get over it (ECM) and move on. "Adapt or die" is often a cliche term in EVE but that doesn't stop it from being just as relevant here - no matter how much people don't want to adapt.
When I saw ECM becoming the new "best" electronic warfare I was concerned that the constant petty crying on the forum was going to result in yet another nerf to electroic warfare - which I think is an important part of the game which is too often misunderstood or ignored in favor of the "more DPS please" approach. However, after all this time I'm becoming more confident that though CCP does keep an eye on these boards they're much more capable at seperating the real imbalances from the bull crap than we usually give them credit for. ECM isn't a mandatory fitting on most ships like RSDs once were and for that I am willing to thank them.
Yes, I am a Falcon (and Rook) pilot, even a "main" and have been since before ECM and the Falcon were so "cool" (FOTM) that everyone started rolling Alts. Am I biased? Absolutely.
Do I want to see another aspect of electronic warfare shat upon because there are some vocal people who've had months and months to adapt but refuse to do so or dare I even say can't for whatever reason (excuse) they'll give? No, I absolutely do not.
Those people can continue to ride home in a pod.
|
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 05:31:00 -
[95]
I notice a lot of people saying "no tank" as an excuse to keep the falcon overpowered.
To those people I say: you have 7 medium slots and t2 ship resistance bonus. You CAN fit a tank - you can tank it just as well as most other cruisers. The fact that you fit ECM in all the med slots just shows how unnecessary tanking modules are - because you don't even need to tank it with all that ECM and range. And that's a problem, the thought of fitting some tanking or speed mods should at least cross people's mind. Not like now - where it's a no brainer to fill all meds with ECM.
No other cruiser, no other recon ship - has it as easy as Falcons. If other people learned to survive, Falcon pilots can learn it also. Sure, most noobs will die horrible death and complain on the forums how their falcon is crap now. But the experienced people will still be successful.
As a Falcon pilot, I know it won't be that difficult for me to operate in 60 km optimal range |
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 07:10:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Ephemeron
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: Ephemeron
The people who still think Falcons are perfectly balanced need to get a reality check.
Tbh, I think you need a reality check if you think they arent balanced.
Remember CCP actually boosted the falcon not so long ago? Good luck waiting for a nerf, not gonna happen anytime soon...
Do you deny the truth of anything I said in the previous post?
If yes, please point out specific case.
Maybe you question my experience as PvP pilot? My experience with Falcons? There are public killboards that can put those questions to rest. I have a Falcon alt myself - maxed out skills, more than 1 year experience.
My falcon alt char is also experience in operation of Amarr and Minmatar recons, so I have something to compare against first hand, as well and the 100s of times I encounter them in hostile gangs. It doesn't get any more real than what I experience. And I am not a fan of nerfing things - proof available in numerous posts I made warning CCP against dangers of abusing nerf power. If I say that Falcons need to be nerfed, it is with outmost caution and as last resort. Even then I'm open to possibility of balancing things out by unnerfing other recons - which is a bit extreme but at least it's not nerfing
You missed the ECM nerfs that already happened in the past from your "true" statement ...
--- SIG ---
CSM: your support is needed ! |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N.
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 08:45:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Ephemeron
I notice a lot of people saying "no tank" as an excuse to keep the falcon overpowered.
To those people I say: you have 7 medium slots and t2 ship resistance bonus. You CAN fit a tank - you can tank it just as well as most other cruisers. The fact that you fit ECM in all the med slots just shows how unnecessary tanking modules are - because you don't even need to tank it with all that ECM and range. And that's a problem, the thought of fitting some tanking or speed mods should at least cross people's mind. Not like now - where it's a no brainer to fill all meds with ECM.
No other cruiser, no other recon ship - has it as easy as Falcons. If other people learned to survive, Falcon pilots can learn it also. Sure, most noobs will die horrible death and complain on the forums how their falcon is crap now. But the experienced people will still be successful.
As a Falcon pilot, I know it won't be that difficult for me to operate in 60 km optimal range
Really? So when a scorch Zealot only has to travel 20Km - that is half a jamming cycle's worth of MWDIng - to melt your "T2 resists" within a few seconds, you'll have "no difficulty"?
When you're within the drone control range of the average T1 BC or BS, you'll have "no difficulty"?
Oh, wait, it gets better. Gates will spread incoming gangs over a 35-50Km sphere, so if you want full coverage, you'll have to be within 20Km of the gate (people always forget this factor when they ignorantly yap on about "220Km jamming range!!!11"). And you reckon that a high-value ship that moves, tanks and DPSs approximately as well as a Badger Mk.II will have "no difficulty" when it is potentially within warp scram range of the nearest enemy at the start of the fight?
I think what you have "no difficulty" with is talking obvious rubbish. With ECM ships as presently constituted, reducing their optimal to 60Km would be a death sentence.
|
ry ry
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 09:51:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 25/01/2009 01:50:46
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 25/01/2009 01:48:47
Originally by: ry ry
its a very similar scenario to the nano thing, but subtley different.
with the nano thing the problem wasn't ships that are supposed to be quick going fast, it was being able to get ludicrous speeds out of a bloody commandships and stuff that was game-breaking
Erm, you just explained why it is totally and completely different to nano.
certain ships overpowered by fitting as many of a single module type as possible? check.
there being no realistic reply to this tactic without specifically setting up your gang to combat it? check.
everybody starts using said tactic because it's so much better than the alternatives? check.
pilots using that tactic claim it is perfectly balanced, and no ship should be able to hit them anyway because they've sacrificed their tank to do it? check
so on and so forth.
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Fun fact: fit a full rack of TDs to your falcon and you take out more turret ships than you ever could with ecm.
hows that then? |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N.
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 09:54:00 -
[99]
Originally by: ry ry
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 25/01/2009 01:50:46
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 25/01/2009 01:48:47
Originally by: ry ry
its a very similar scenario to the nano thing, but subtley different.
with the nano thing the problem wasn't ships that are supposed to be quick going fast, it was being able to get ludicrous speeds out of a bloody commandships and stuff that was game-breaking
Erm, you just explained why it is totally and completely different to nano.
certain ships overpowered by fitting as many of a single module type as possible? check.
there being no realistic reply to this tactic without specifically setting up your gang to combat it? check.
everybody starts using said tactic because it's so much better than the alternatives? check.
pilots using that tactic claim it is perfectly balanced, and no ship should be able to hit them anyway because they've sacrificed their tank to do it? check
so on and so forth.
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Fun fact: fit a full rack of TDs to your falcon and you take out more turret ships than you ever could with ecm.
hows that then?
Because you can use just one EW module to 100% definitely take out any gunship. |
ry ry
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 09:56:00 -
[100]
Edited by: ry ry on 25/01/2009 09:57:49
Originally by: Omara Otawan
..
wait, i get it now. a quick in-game check reveals that character is most likely a falcon alt in an industrial corp. of course you think ECM is fine ;) |
ry ry
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 09:57:00 -
[101]
Edited by: ry ry on 25/01/2009 09:58:07
Originally by: Malcanis
Because you can use just one EW module to 100% definitely take out any gunship.
which one - by reducing it's ability to track moving targets, or reducing it's optimal range? |
BiggestT
Caldari
Resurrection
Skunk-Works
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 10:56:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Ephemeron
It would still be operating within 50-80 KM ranges, which is pretty damn safe
And nobody forces you to fight at closer range. If you prefer safety of 140km attack, by all means, just don't expect to perma-jamm 3 ships at once
I see what you did there...
You just want a change that doesnt affect your dual boxing falcon/nightmare experience but still nerfs any1 who uses a falcon against you :P
Nevar!
|
Joss Sparq
Caldari
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 11:00:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Ephemeron
I notice a lot of people saying "no tank" as an excuse to keep the falcon overpowered.
I notice a lot of people saying the Falcon is overpowered as an excuse for their own inadequacies.
Originally by: Ephemeron
To those people I say: you have 7 medium slots and t2 ship resistance bonus. You CAN fit a tank - you can tank it just as well as most other cruisers. The fact that you fit ECM in all the med slots just shows how unnecessary tanking modules are - because you don't even need to tank it with all that ECM and range. And that's a problem, the thought of fitting some tanking or speed mods should at least cross people's mind. Not like now - where it's a no brainer to fill all meds with ECM.
To you I say: Having people deliberately ignore the (very focused) bonuses on their ships is (to be direct) bloody stupid.
I really shouldn't have to illustrate this point further to anyone, but suffice to say I doubt the Railgun Zealot will become popular any time soon ...
Originally by: Ephemeron
No other cruiser, no other recon ship - has it as easy as Falcons. If other people learned to survive, Falcon pilots can learn it also. Sure, most noobs will die horrible death and complain on the forums how their falcon is crap now. But the experienced people will still be successful.
So by your argument, the people who fly a Falcon should have to adapt to the people who can't adapt to people flying the Falcon.
Ah, no comment 
Originally by: Ephemeron
As a Falcon pilot, I know it won't be that difficult for me to operate in 60 km optimal range
Then please go and do it right now. I'm sure it'll make one of your fellows very happy when they catch you. |
Roger Arko
Geddonites
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 11:12:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Ephemeron
My idea is simple: Add a negative "side effect" to Signal Distortion Amplifier II -20% optimal range
IMHO, better to make ECCM more effective against ECM.
|
P'uck
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 11:14:00 -
[105]
Edited by: P''uck on 25/01/2009 11:15:07
Jeebus, even if one has a falcon fetish, they should be able to see that it might be a tad too strong.
ECM might be fine, covops cloak functionality might be fine, range might be fine. Combine it all and it gets iffy.
You know, I'm not even ****ed about the few fights I got jammed and could do nothing but watch/warp. I'm not even ****ed about the fights we lost because of the other side bringing more rasperry jam to the field than we did. I simply don't care, such is the game, and since ludicrous speed has been taken away, jamming is one of the few things that desperately tries to let eve be more than an RR'ing blob- & slugfest.
But hey, I can take a look at the other force recons and their usefulness as well as the survivability... and if you dont see a slight imbalance there, I think no amount of reasoning will be able to get some sense into you. There should be some incentive to train anything but the falcon. And this incentive should NOT be "train for the weakest stuff so you get boosted when the great wheel of nerfing fortune gets spinned again".
|
Comae Berenices
Gallente
The Trillion ISK Project
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 11:23:00 -
[106]
Originally by: fuxinos
Originally by: Ephemeron
My idea is simple: Add a negative "side effect" to Signal Distortion Amplifier II -20% optimal range
Think about it. A major problem with Falcons is that they are so powerful and easily operate in 140km ranges. Every Falcon pilot (who's not a newb) fits at least 2x Signal Distortion Amplifier, usually 3x. There's simply no point to fit anything else there.
But now, with -20% range modifier, Falcon pilots would have to seriously consider if they prefer to be more powerful at shorter ranges, or less powerful at longer ranges. It is same idea as with guns - short range weapons are more powerful, long range ones are less powerful
This would weaken the Falcons ability to survive a battle way to much, remember, he has NO tank.
Apart from that, its a good idea, but Falcons NEEDS to get a defensive ability therefor to compensate.
Either Dronebay, or the optimalbonus changed to resistbonus or more speed.
And with recon actually has a tank? |
Comae Berenices
Gallente
The Trillion ISK Project
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 11:26:00 -
[107]
The problem compared to other recon ships is that falcon can take out 7 ships out of the fight. Usually it's 5.
Now other recons have to use like 3 of their medium slots to do their effect with same power to single ship. That's the problem.
For example Arazu will need 3-4 damps to do the same thing than falcon can do with single ECM mod. Pilgrim needs 3-4 td's and Rapier needs that 3 webbers now to do anything.
Weaken ECM or buff other recons. That's the only way. |
Joss Sparq
Caldari
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 11:45:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Roger Arko
IMHO, better to make ECCM more effective against ECM.
I don't disagree that some minor improvements to balance could be made and ECCM is potentially one of them. I'm actually surprised that there isn't an ECCM bonus on the Oneiros instead of Sensor Linking, for example. However the constant prattle from some quarters to take a "wrecking-ball to a nail" approach won't solve anything, just cause more problems.
Not that they really care, as long as they get what they want.
Originally by: Comae Berenices
Weaken ECM or buff other recons. That's the only way.
Actually, I'd like to see them get to ignore the restrictions applied by Scripts - so that they're returned to pre-Script capabilities. After all, they're supposed to excel at electronic warfare.
|
Roger Arko
Geddonites
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 11:49:00 -
[109]
Originally by: lecrotta
Edited by: lecrotta on 24/01/2009 20:35:16
Originally by: ry ry
the other Ewar won't effect all ships though. a missile boat and droneships lol at TDs for example. ECM effects every ship, and as mentioned above, takes it out of the fight.
ECM does not effect FOF missiles or drones either.......kthxbye
Beg your pardon but you are mistaken. ECM do affect drones and FOFs. There is big difference between focus fire on primary target and sitting jammed waiting for your drones to random aggro at least something...
FOFs is a joke in pvp. Have you ever managed to kill something using FOFs? I highly doubt.
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 13:01:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Ephemeron
Do you deny the truth of anything I said in the previous post?
You got the details kinda right as in the other systems were nerfed but your conclusion that those merfs justify a ECM nerf is based on emo and stupidity not realty. Especially considering ECM has already had a nerf as well.
The other ewar systems were nerfed cos they were way too effective on non bonused ships, and ECM sucks real bad when fitted on non bonused ships. |
Muad' Dib
Gallente
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 13:23:00 -
[111]
Edited by: Muad'' Dib on 25/01/2009 13:25:53
Originally by: Ephemeron
My idea is simple: Add a negative "side effect" to Signal Distortion Amplifier II -20% optimal range
Think about it. A major problem with Falcons is that they are so powerful and easily operate in 140km ranges. Every Falcon pilot (who's not a newb) fits at least 2x Signal Distortion Amplifier, usually 3x. There's simply no point to fit anything else there.
But now, with -20% range modifier, Falcon pilots would have to seriously consider if they prefer to be more powerful at shorter ranges, or less powerful at longer ranges. It is same idea as with guns - short range weapons are more powerful, long range ones are less powerful
So non-pirates can easily operate Falcons at 100km without sentries raping them, while pirates have Falcons that can sit out of sentry range, but have to sacrifice 2 mids to stay there, and all lows. Nice one dude, truly brilliant for balance.
Falcons need to get nerfed, but not at the expense of killing low-sec pirates.
---
I smack just for myself.
* Your signature file is to large. Please note: we do not allow signature files larger than 24000 bytes - Fallout |
shortattenionsp
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 14:26:00 -
[112]
The argument the falcon has "no tank" is fairly perverse.
The only reason it seemingly has "no tank" is because everyone crams it so full of ECM and nothing else - it is still a T2 cruiser with resists and tonnes of mid slots. The reason people don't fit any tank is because it can operate out of harms way and doesn't really need it.
The falcon can be tanked like any other recon, the fact is ecm is so good no one bothers to tank it thats all.
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 14:37:00 -
[113]
Edited by: lebrata on 25/01/2009 14:45:41
Originally by: shortattenionsp
The falcon can be tanked like any other recon, the fact is ecm is so good no one bothers to tank it thats all.
So just totally ignore that the falcon is a shield tanker (mid slot tank fyi) and the arazu ect are armour tankers (low slot tank fyi)?. And that for ECM to be even close to effective it also needs amps in the low slots...
|
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 15:16:00 -
[114]
True that the falcon can fit a tank.
But it`s also the only recon that is not able to do anything solo.
It`s a pure support ship. If you meet one it wont do much to you.
There is also nothing stopping people from filling all their midslots with ewar on the other recons.
Curse can use TD at 100km optimal. With rigs.
Rapier can use web close to 100km in gang with gangskills and mods. We have had a rapier doing webbing at 200km+ in our corp once...
And all the changes people are talking about is with the falcon in mind, then you should suggest a fix on the falcon, not **** over every other ecm ship in the game in the process...
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 15:21:00 -
[115]
Originally by: ry ry
Edited by: ry ry on 25/01/2009 09:57:49
Originally by: Omara Otawan
..
wait, i get it now. a quick in-game check reveals that character is most likely a falcon alt in an industrial corp. of course you think ECM is fine ;)
Fail. This character cant fly a falcon, and is not even active. A quick check on battleclinic would tell you he never was in any form of pvp.
In fact, it happens to be my falcon pilots alt. I dont say 'falcon alt' because he flies a wide variety of ships, not only falcons.
So what was your point again? Ah I get it, there is not point...
|
Joss Sparq
Caldari
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 15:55:00 -
[116]
I think the point was to somehow try and invalidate your opinion by way of insinuating that due to your supporting the opposing view you must have a vested interest in doing so and are therefore negatively biased and unfairly so.
You know, because if you're a Falcon pilot you're not supposed to have a right of reply in any of this business
|
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 18:50:00 -
[117]
Originally by: lebrata
Edited by: lebrata on 25/01/2009 14:45:41
Originally by: shortattenionsp
The falcon can be tanked like any other recon, the fact is ecm is so good no one bothers to tank it thats all.
So just totally ignore that the falcon is a shield tanker (mid slot tank fyi) and the arazu ect are armour tankers (low slot tank fyi)?. And that for ECM to be even close to effective it also needs amps in the low slots...
Arazu is paperthin as well, most people fit it with 2 LSEs and some nanos in lows to be able to bail out quick. I don't know about Minmatar recons but with the nerf to webs it's become less usefull than the Arazu... because that one is somehwat effective at disableing MWDs (with faction scramblers). And you can't tank it with plates either because it needs the speed. Not to mentione that their second EW sucks major balls. Not to mentione they need to operate within 50km.
Actually Amarr are the only recons to be able to effectively solo. And we know TDs will eventually get a nerf soon (byebye last utility mod :/ ). These facts alone let me wonder whenever you play the game at all.
I'm not defending the whole nerf Falcons/ECM thing either, I just find the justifications kinda funny, because every other recon has to put up with the smae problems. I want it to be changed because chance based usefullnes with such a strong medule is humbug. It needs to be effective in larger battles and less usefull in small ones. There already have been suggestions like reducing the max target locking count to a minimum of 1 and give it a 100% chance in its optimal range.
Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
Corwain
Gallente
Dark Skullz Empire
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 19:23:00 -
[118]
Edited by: Corwain on 25/01/2009 19:24:29
You know people whining about the whine-nerf cycle are the peak of irony. Look, some things are too powerful, they get nerfed, the cycle repeats. This has ALWAYS been the cycle in EVERY continuous development game. Only reason that people get so touchy about it here is that the skill system restricts what ships people can fly, which means that those that can fly everything, and those that can fly the overpowered ships can _easily_ kill everyone that can't. I'm not talking about the falcon in specific here, I'm talking about every nerf in general.
I said all that to say this. I trained Amarr recons, it was nerfed. I trained Gallente recons. They were nerfed. I trained Minmatar recons. THEY were nerfed. I haven't trained Caldari recons yet, but I think that those that have are gonna have their innocence dashed sooner or later so it might as well be sooner. Just bend over and prepare to be bum-****d, stop kicking and screaming. It is so much more dignified and less painful for everyone that way.
Nerfs are inevitable. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |