Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Xorth Adimus
Caldari The Perfect Storm Random-Violence
|
Posted - 2010.12.17 21:34:00 -
[1]
Carriers and Dreads have mostly lost their primary role in eve today. Mostly now they are just targets or used for other things then cap warfare/ using their (once fun) special abilities to triage/ seige.
If you have the balls to drop a capital ship and say I am staying here for a few minutes you should get a better bonus then a poor local rep one, it really helps with titans and motherships instapoping you faster then then half of them can lock that rep bonus...
I propose a little bit of help (which may not make a huge differance but will make some):
Dreads get a 50% resist bonus whilst in seige and 25% additional damage over that done today
Carriers also get a 50% resist bonus whilst in triage.
We know that 50 MS / Titans can kill pretty much any other amount of capitals with impunity, more supercaps wins, this is broken and will get more broken.
A fleet of seiged dreads should be very viable for large scale anti capital warfare. They should also be semi survivable in smaller numbers vs one supercapital if they do drop in and *go green*.
Or we can all go back to flying supercaps online..
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.17 21:51:00 -
[2]
Since the balance problem is primarily with supercaps, why apply balance changes to something other than supercaps?
-----------------
|
King Rothgar
Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2010.12.17 21:56:00 -
[3]
Carriers and dreads are well balanced vs BS's, BC's... and other carriers/dreads. The problem only comes up when we talk about SC's. So it is SC's that are the problem, not carriers/dreads.
Thus far you shall read, but no further; for this is my sig. |
Kai Yuen
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 02:27:00 -
[4]
Dreads are by far the most useless capital ship in the game now. There's nothing they can do that a super carrier won't do better. Buffing dreads to make them viable vs. super carriers or supercaps in general isn't such a bad option. At least then it would have a role, right not it's role is either collect dust or shoot at inanimate objects... and die. Super carriers eat them alive.
|
Lord Rapture
Amarr Appetite 4 Destruction
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 04:31:00 -
[5]
so basically, you want to **** supercaps with significantly less "risked isk" fielded because you cannot form your own supercap gang
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 06:52:00 -
[6]
I have been trying to work out this system that would be like a 'capital jump capacitor' for players. Super capitals jumping would take out large portions of this and would limit how often they could jump all over.
You would see less super cap hot drops due to the fact not everyone would be able to make the jump. You would see more sub capitals in exchange though, which I belive is a good thing.
Also, not my idea but it is a good one is decrease the siege cycle time by 50% to match that of the carriers triage cycle time. This would make seiging dreads more of a reality.
So, more dreads, less super caps. Granted normal capital ships would eat away at this 'capital jump capacitor' as well, but nothing like super caps do.
Overall, a lot less super capital shinaniganz, more dreads, but overall less capital ship projection.
|
Jaari Val'Dara
Caldari Atomic Zeppelins BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 10:10:00 -
[7]
Super capital gang is a term that should be abolished. Super capitals should be rare enough so that no one could field more than 1-2.
We should make super capitals take much longer to be produced. At the very least half a year.
|
Kai Yuen
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 10:28:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Jaari Val'Dara Super capital gang is a term that should be abolished. Super capitals should be rare enough so that no one could field more than 1-2.
We should make super capitals take much longer to be produced. At the very least half a year.
That won't solve the problem.
A) So many already exist that it would take half a year just for major alliances to feel the impact, and by then a fresh batch would be ready.
B) It wouldn't hit major alliances nearly as hard as it would hit the smaller ones. The only thing raising production standards does is make the gap between the larger and smaller alliances wider. Make it too big and ONLY large alliance will have super caps and they'll STILL have a lot of them.
|
Jaari Val'Dara
Caldari Atomic Zeppelins BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 11:02:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Kai Yuen
Originally by: Jaari Val'Dara Super capital gang is a term that should be abolished. Super capitals should be rare enough so that no one could field more than 1-2.
We should make super capitals take much longer to be produced. At the very least half a year.
That won't solve the problem.
A) So many already exist that it would take half a year just for major alliances to feel the impact, and by then a fresh batch would be ready.
B) It wouldn't hit major alliances nearly as hard as it would hit the smaller ones. The only thing raising production standards does is make the gap between the larger and smaller alliances wider. Make it too big and ONLY large alliance will have super caps and they'll STILL have a lot of them.
In that case destroy all super capitals replacing it with equivalent of minerals and 1 run bpc with reduced production time.
|
Josef Huffenpuff
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 11:42:00 -
[10]
Well, like it or not, the 0.0 sov game is becoming supercaps on-line. Personally I don't have a problem with this.
The problem is that Titan + SC = I win. The only counter is MOAR. So yes, as posted in another thread, Dreads need to provide the balance to a cap fight that should be about rock/paper/scissors not rock/paper/shotgun.
A few sieged dreads should be able to pop an SC
and the AoE Doomsday is a much better counter to Drake blobs .
|
|
Lord Rapture
Amarr Appetite 4 Destruction
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 13:04:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Josef Huffenpuff Well, like it or not, the 0.0 sov game is becoming supercaps on-line. Personally I don't have a problem with this.
The problem is that Titan + SC = I win. The only counter is MOAR. So yes, as posted in another thread, Dreads need to provide the balance to a cap fight that should be about rock/paper/scissors not rock/paper/shotgun.
A few sieged dreads should be able to pop an SC
and the AoE Doomsday is a much better counter to Drake blobs .
It has always been having more = win. When dreads were the most important ship in 0.0. more = win. IMO the current form on dreads should be changed completely. The siege module is obsolete and serves no purpose in current battlefield senarios. give them skill level based damage bonus like titans. only usable role I can see in current supercap blob senario is long range bombardment, give them bonus to optimal range and reduced tracking so they dont wtfpwn subcaps. reduce their agility to similar align time to a JF. this way they are able to do consistant high damage to supercaps, avoid fighter bombers and able to be remoted repped while attacking.
|
Bobbechk
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 14:30:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Bobbechk on 18/12/2010 14:34:45 The only problems with dreads is the fact that they have to commit to a fight entirely by sieging
thus it is easier to send supercaps to a fight so you can pull out whenever you want to if **** go down south
The isk/dps and ehp is fine compared to a supercap (you will get 20 Dreads with a total off some 40k DPS and a total of 40M ehp compared to a single Nyx with 10k dps and something like 30M ehp)
so like i said its well scaled apart from the actual siege cycle...
I do think that capitals should have to commit to fights entirely if they wants to fight and this should probably include supercapitals, titans 10min DD cool-down timer should probably be a 10min "system is recharging while warp core and propultion is offlined" (like siege) and deploying Figther bombers from SC's should probably have something equivalent (hurr RP here we go) "Offlining Warp core and propultion to direct power to Figther Bomber control center"
This would probably boil down to supers having mediocre DPS if they dont want to commit to fights (titans only using guns and SC's only launching regular figthers) and still do nice DPS if they choose to commit for 10min (like dreads)
EDIT: also this bull**** talk about Dreads not being able to do anything in Capital fights is just stupid nonsense, Dreads will ofc be called primaries in capital fights and probably most will die but thats just due to the fact that they field the most DPS compared to their HP, to reduce incoming DPS you will need to kill the dreads first, and that will buy the Hostile supers allot of time for them to apply DPS on your fleet...
________
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 15:37:00 -
[13]
Carriers are by and large near perfect as things are. They do like all other ships (lol-Drakes) scale horribly but there is nothing to do about that without breaking the game entirely. Isolated or small groups of them are loot pinatas for the well-organized gangs/fleets. CCP needs to decide what ship should be the primary damage platform in the capital realm. Dreads are outclassed by SCs to such an extent that I cannot fathom why anyone would ever choose it if a SC is around. With POS warfare gone, the battering ram is kind of unemployed. We should send the noble Dreadnought on a job-training course so it can have purpose once more.
Originally by: Bobbechk On the state of capital warfare
If Dreads were indeed still viable then surely they would still be deployed
You may be right that the Dreads you can buy for the ISK cost of a SC surpass the SC in 'on-paper' performance. What you do not account for is the double digit number of pilots needed to achieve that .. per SC mind you. The amount of pilots required to counter any sort of SC gathering quickly becomes so huge that it is a practical impossibility.
As for forcing even supers to commit; I can see the point when it comes to SCs at present, but Titans are not really used as frontline hulls except for mop-up duty/killmail whoring (as I understand it). Adding a five minute timer to both after deployment of their primary weapon system should be more than enough to prevent hit'n'run tactics using the moon sized ships, most will probably still escape but with heavy losses.
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 18:01:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Bobbechk Edited by: Bobbechk on 18/12/2010 14:34:45 The only problems with dreads is the fact that they have to commit to a fight entirely by sieging
thus it is easier to send supercaps to a fight so you can pull out whenever you want to if **** go down south
The isk/dps and ehp is fine compared to a supercap (you will get 20 Dreads with a total off some 40k DPS and a total of 40M ehp compared to a single Nyx with 10k dps and something like 30M ehp)
ISK is NEVER the primary way to balance something. It would only be the cause if you would have more pilots than ships, but you dont. You only promote botting this way, since you need the supercaps to be competetive. A ship which requires 20 other ships to take down is ridiculous.
|
King Rothgar
Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 20:55:00 -
[15]
Edited by: King Rothgar on 18/12/2010 20:56:36 And that's the problem. Dreads really are just fine if you remove SC's from the game. They are even balanced with titans. It's only SC's that stick out as they do more dps than a titan (excluding the 1 shot wonder gun) and have equal or greater EHP. In effect, a SC > titan despite the fact that titans cost far more. SC's don't need a loving nerf, they need a good whack with the hammer. Halving the HP's and reducing FB damage by 50% would be a good start. They should have more tank than a dread/carrier but they should not do more dps than a sieged dread. They should do no more than half of what a gank fit dread does (about 7-8k for a revelation).
In essence, comparing a SC to a carrier or dread should be like comparing a BS to a BC. Yeah, it will stomp them with equal numbers, but you can't dive in 5 vs 20 and expect to win typically. With SC's you can and that's the balancing problem.
Thus far you shall read, but no further; for this is my sig. |
Acac Sunflyier
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 01:32:00 -
[16]
If they don't already, capital ships should also buff the fleet. They're capital ships as in ships that are command quality. So they should provide a buff for having them out. Especially since they're so damned expensive.
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari Money Liberation Services Corp
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 02:03:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Acac Sunflyier If they don't already, capital ships should also buff the fleet. They're capital ships as in ships that are command quality. So they should provide a buff for having them out. Especially since they're so damned expensive.
Capitals are not expensive. And this might surprise you, but some people actually do use gang links on carriers! Since apart from titans there are no other jump capable command ships.
And as has been said already: Supercaps are the problem. They are sticking out while subcaps and capitals are well enough balanced against each other.
Titans and SC however are straight upgrades over their respective counterparts. A dread at least is a unique ship distinguished from the battleship in a unique combat role. A titan is just a superdread, making the dread obsolete.
|
Kai Yuen
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 02:24:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Batolemaeus
Capitals are not expensive. And this might surprise you, but some people actually do use gang links on carriers! Since apart from titans there are no other jump capable command ships.
And as has been said already: Supercaps are the problem. They are sticking out while subcaps and capitals are well enough balanced against each other.
Titans and SC however are straight upgrades over their respective counterparts. A dread at least is a unique ship distinguished from the battleship in a unique combat role. A titan is just a superdread, making the dread obsolete.
Wrong on many accounts.
Dreads were balanced even with Titans in play, the real game changer was super carriers. Suddenly you have a ship that does everything the dread was meant to do, but better. The only change to Titans that hit dreads was the doomsday change, which turned the Titan into a cap killer. Most of the capitals on the field at the time were dreads and dreads cost more than carriers so many dreads ended up as DD victims, not to mention that sieged dreads are sitting ducks vs. super caps. As a result, people stopped flying dreads.
Carriers don't actually need a buff. Carriers are still viable and very flexible. They make good sub-cap killers and hot droppers, you NEED them to rep towers because only they can fit triage, and they spider tank exceptionally well. Dreads do NONE OF THE ABOVE. They're worthless. Sure, pre-super carrier dreads were balanced, but they aren't now. The old Moms aren't coming back. No way in hell. Don't ***** over what's already happened. Just update dreads to fit their new environment. Dreads should be the super-carrier killer of choice. Right now the only thing that kills super carriers is other super carriers. Even Titans are worthless against them. Make dreads anti-supercap and you'll balance out the scale of capital power again.
|
Space Pinata
Amarr Discount Napkin Industries
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 03:26:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Space Pinata on 20/12/2010 03:29:26 Edited by: Space Pinata on 20/12/2010 03:28:30 ITT: People think the individual matters in blob wars.
It's all about grand strategy and economy. Whoever can crank out more warships, and field the pilots to fly them, wins. End of story.
You CAN NOT get around that. Ever. It's not a matter of X or Y ship, but of war itself. If you want to be able to take an inferior fleet (carriers vs supercarriers) in, and win, then it's no longer an inferior fleet. It's the new FoTM. Your enemy will fly it too.
Now, that said, even though the supercap heavy fleet -should- be at an advantage, supercarriers are a bit excessive.
Making them harder to build won't help. Never underestimate the ability to grind, and if they don't die often, they still build up to excessive levels over time.
Well, you get the idea. Making the entry level harder doesn't help much, and only solidly hands power to alliances who already HAVE the supercap fleet, while making it harder for an upstart to ever GET a supercap fleet.
Nerfing them? Maybe. It can't be too hard, though. If they melt really fast they become a waste of ISK. If they don't outclass carriers soundly, waste of isk. (20x the cost plus other downsides? If nerfed, a SC needs to at least match 4-5 carriers..)
Give carriers the ability to use fighter bombers? This seems solid. Not a full flight, of course. Say, a normal carrier could launch 5 fighter bombers, so they could do 2500~ dps to caps? Then 4 carriers = 1 supercarrier in terms of dps, and a blob of carriers can take down a small supercarrier gang more soundly...
Alternatively, make SCs require fuel. Not just 'fuel to jump', but 'fuel to operate'. As in, if the ship is running, the capacitor is full and mods are online, you're burning fuel. Even when offline. Make them cost at least as much as a large control tower to keep running.
Why? Simple. No matter how much supercaps cost, you'll be able to accumulate as many as you have the patience for, since they're basically 'free' from the moment you make the down payment until the day they die.
If you want to reduce supercap numbers, make it cost money just to own one. Like a sov maintenance fee for owning space. This forces an alliance to decide just how many supercaps it's willing to cut into it'd budget to pay for. (Instead of, simply, how fast is it willing to accumulate them.) |
Catheryn Martobi
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 03:34:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Lord Rapture so basically, you want to **** supercaps with significantly less "risked isk" fielded because you cannot form your own supercap gang
That seems to sum it up pretty well, but your sarcasm implies we should need to field a supercap gang in order to beat a supercap gang.
|
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari Money Liberation Services Corp
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 04:05:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Batolemaeus on 20/12/2010 04:07:31
Originally by: Kai Yuen
Wrong on many accounts.
Please explain where I am wrong. So far you have only been agreeing with me.
Originally by: Kai Yuen
Carriers don't actually need a buff.
Neither do dreads.
|
Space Pinata
Amarr Discount Napkin Industries
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 04:44:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Space Pinata on 20/12/2010 04:45:48 Edited by: Space Pinata on 20/12/2010 04:45:14
Originally by: Catheryn Martobi
Originally by: Lord Rapture so basically, you want to **** supercaps with significantly less "risked isk" fielded because you cannot form your own supercap gang
That seems to sum it up pretty well, but your sarcasm implies we should need to field a supercap gang in order to beat a supercap gang.
Shouldn't you?
If caps can beat supercaps without substantially outnumbering them, what's the point of supercaps?
I could understand that sort of whining from people who can't fly capitals, but if you can fly a carrier, the only thing stopping you from buying a supercarrier is "I don't wanna do it".
And, again: If supercaps can be easily countered by something less than supercaps, why do supercaps exist?
That's kinda like saying that it's unfair for an Ishtar to beat a Vexor.
EVE isn't an FPS and you're not gonna get a fair fight unless you bring equal ships. If you can't bring supercaps, you need to bring vastly superior numbers..
They may be a bit too powerful, but they SHOULD be more powerful. That's why they exist. What do you propose should take down supercaps if not a gang of supercaps? |
Lord Rapture
Amarr Appetite 4 Destruction
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 08:17:00 -
[23]
I think engagements are pretty simple. If you want a plain head on engagement and win, you need either numerical superiority or ship superiority preferably both. If you have neither, than stop trying to engage head on and complain about being ****d, what did you expect to happen? If you have no advantages and want to do something, than get creative; Sabatoge, catch stagglers on jumpin/out, bombing runs on hostile fighters/fighter bombers,inflict economic damage. as for dreads, like I commented on another post. remove siege module, give them level based damage bonus like titans, reduce tracking and improve optimal range. their role in eve today should be long range bombardment of capitals. this wya they can be remote repped by carriers and kite fighterbobmers by being at long ranges, while still vulnerable to titan guns/doomsday and tackle for SC to get in closer.
|
Zilberfrid
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 08:58:00 -
[24]
It's really not the fact that a numerical advantage is needed that is the problem, it is the amount needed.
I have no exact numbers (I don't even like BS, let alone above that), but should one vexor reliably beat an ishtar? No. Should two vexors reliably beat an ishtar? Yes.
Can one carrier reliably kill a supercarrier? No. Can two carriers reliably beat a supercarrier? No. Can three carriers reliably beat a supercarrier? No. Can four carriers reliably beat a supercarrier? No.
This is the discrepancy. ------------------------------------- I like to fly around and shoot stuff.
|
Lord Rapture
Amarr Appetite 4 Destruction
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 09:08:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Zilberfrid It's really not the fact that a numerical advantage is needed that is the problem, it is the amount needed.
I have no exact numbers (I don't even like BS, let alone above that), but should one vexor reliably beat an ishtar? No. Should two vexors reliably beat an ishtar? Yes.
Can one carrier reliably kill a supercarrier? No. Can two carriers reliably beat a supercarrier? No. Can three carriers reliably beat a supercarrier? No. Can four carriers reliably beat a supercarrier? No.
This is the discrepancy.
there is no discrepancy, carriers' role is not to kill supercaps. 4 carriers properly setup cannot be killed by any supercarrier. as for the Ishtar, 2 vexors should not reliably beat 1 ishtar, this is stupid thinking. the stats of a t2 ship gives it the ability to fill a role that it's t1 counterpart cannont, to expect 2 of it's t1 counterpairs to reliably kill it self is simply rediculous.
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari Money Liberation Services Corp
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 16:18:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Zilberfrid
I have no exact numbers (I don't even like BS, let alone above that), but should one vexor reliably beat an ishtar? No. Should two vexors reliably beat an ishtar? Yes.
Can one carrier reliably kill a supercarrier? No. Can two carriers reliably beat a supercarrier? No. Can three carriers reliably beat a supercarrier? No. Can four carriers reliably beat a supercarrier? No.
This is the discrepancy.
Nail -> head.
Scaps can simply kite entire dread fleets on TQ, effectively speedtanking them while popping one hull every minute. Scaps need to be at a disproportionally large numerical disadvantage to be under threat, not in line with ship balancing across eve.
Yes, two cruisers should beat a hac if they play their roles right. A subcap fleet against a pure cap fleet should result in many dead capitals due to their inherent weaknesses and strengths. And if you take supers out of the equation, that's exactly how it works on tq. A fleet of high alpha battleships can radically decimate even large carrier fleets unless there is support around. Dreads are completely helpless without someone keeping close range and tackle superiority. Carriers can be reasonably shut down by specialized fleets with ewar superiority, high alpha or strong rr combined with neuts. There are dozens of options and strategies dealing with capitals vs. subcaps.
With supers, there is only one: Pile on more. Supers, that is.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 16:32:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Lord Rapture there is no discrepancy, carriers' role is not to kill supercaps. 4 carriers properly setup cannot be killed by any supercarrier...
Then by all means, lets replace the carriers with Dreadnoughts (anti-capital, yes?). Can one dread reliably kill a SC? No. Can two dreads reliably kill a SC? No .... Can ten Dreads reliably kill a SC? Maybe, depends on fit. Can fifteen dreads reliably kill a SC? definitely, but with massive losses.
The entire capital class needs to be revised. Things were fairly good prior to SC change, now its "SC or bust!" .. either rethink SC or conduct open-heart surgery on dreads/titans to provide a realistic counter to them that does not involve fielding more of the same.
Carriers are utility vessels and are at a pretty good spot now in my opinion. Can be huge force multipliers but can be taken out by just about anything.
|
Space Pinata
Amarr Discount Napkin Industries
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 06:46:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Space Pinata on 21/12/2010 06:49:29 I am sorry for bringing up the Vexor -> Ishtar analogy, it's not really valid.
Supercarriers are not tech2 carriers, but a larger class of ship entirely.
It's more like comparing the Vexor to the Dominix than to the Ishtar (which is a speedier and tougher vexor).
The only problem dreads seem to have is being stopped by siege. Remove that, and you only have to worry about tank vs ehp etc.
It's honestly very, very hard to think of a way to make supercarriers 'fair'. They're a huge investment and deserve to be game changing. If you impliment some of the suggested changes, they'll go back to being vanity items that are only marginally better than carriers...
..Or they'll end up dying all the time.
If you make them MORE accessible, you might balance the field a bit, but at the cost of making it even more of a game of supercarriers online.
Perhaps make a way for them to be damaged severely and not killed? Like, say, it gets crippled and gets a chance to jump out (like a normal pod might get away), and has to be repaired (for the cost of several carriers). This way they can be more expensive to run, beatable, but not too much of a death-trap to ever enjoy flying. (-20b isk can't happen too often..)
I have a feeling that's too 'not eve' for some people though.
Really, trying to balance carriers and supercarriers is just stupid. If you can fly a carrier, you can fly a supercarrier. Buy one and stop whinging. Dreads vs Supercarriers needs more looking into. As do subcaps vs supercarriers. |
Zilberfrid
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 09:11:00 -
[29]
So you'll agree to a vexor/brutix analogy? ------------------------------------- I like to fly around and shoot stuff.
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 09:57:00 -
[30]
@Pinata, so you say everyone should fly supercarriers (and use macros to buy new ones).
More expensive should mean something performs better, but not that it walks over everything else. For balance every ship needs a ship that counters it with roughly equal numbers, regardless of ISK cost. Supercarriers can be perfectly viable ships in a nerfed state, where they are the ones supporting the main fleet. But if you balance by ISK cost instead of by pilot cost you end up that everyone needs to buy the biggest ship to win, and i thought that exactly wasnt the idea of eve, bigger should not be automatically be better.
That dreads would theoretically win the ISK war is completely irrelevant. If i bring 100 supercarriers and you bring 1000 dreads you win maybe, and we are talking about roughly same ISK cost. Difference is that you need 1000 pilots while i needed 100, now imagine those 1000 pilots also in SCs.
Go buy some macros because you need the largest ships to be competitive is not really a good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |