Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 50 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 48 post(s) |
Omnathious Deninard
The Scope Gallente Federation
1010
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 12:36:00 -
[811] - Quote
Was it intentional to make scanning so easy that there is no need to train anything beyond Astrometrics 3? Wi you consider adjusting signature strengths to compensate for the new system and modules? Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
1362
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 12:37:00 -
[812] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Hey guys, thanks for all the great feedback.
WeGÇÖre writing a dev blog that talks a bit more in depth about many of the changes, but in the meantime I wanted to quickly address a few things:
Regarding removing the DSP GÇô the DSP basically allowed people to quickly get a picture of everything in the system (including ships), in a kind of a GÇ£cheatingGÇ¥ way as it didnGÇÖt really use the probe scan system (no triangulation or anything). This and the heavy overlap with the Sensor Overlay system made us decide to remove them. There are other ways to find/track ships in systems; apart from the D-Scan, there are also the combat probes, which really are there to do what the DSP just did better. I should mention that weGÇÖre adjusting the sweep formation to not have any gaps.
Regarding removing options GÇô there has been some criticism that weGÇÖre removing some edge-case functionality in how some players probe scan. Basically what weGÇÖre doing is creating a streamlined method on how to probe scan, but players are not forced to use this method if theyGÇÖre used to scanning differently. WeGÇÖve tried to maintain the old functionality, short-cuts, etc. as much as possible. But weGÇÖre not aiming to make every single method a streamlined version GÇô basically, you can continue to use scan probes in different ways, but there is no guarantee that this is going to be easier/quicker than the streamlined version.
Regarding new names for sites, decryptors, modules GÇô The main reason for us to change the names of the sites is that the terms (radar, gravimetric, etc.) are already being used elsewhere in the game, and having the same terms over two quite different systems is really confusing. So weGÇÖre not changing them because we didnGÇÖt like them, but because theyGÇÖre already in use. As for other name changes, we decided to go for names that offer a bit better clarity to their functionality GÇô we always try to keep things thematic and cool, but it canGÇÖt be too much at the expense of playability. In these cases we felt it was better to tone down a bit on the thematic names.
Keep the good comments coming, the dev blog should be out late this week or early next week.
While I understand your reasonings for the DSP removal (I'll adapt) I have to say in its current state the Sensor Overlay system is largely useless eye candy. While it might be ok for a typical High or low sec system, which on average may have a handful of signatures, for 0.0 and Wormholes it can be utterly stupid. Having to spin in space and mouse over icons when you have >50 sigs (not uncommon for a WH system) is just insanely useless.
I can understand your hesitance to have some sort of table output for the system overlay (would give use DSP functionality without launching a probe) but are there plans to at least link the systems somewhat. In my opinion the two systems should at least have the capabilities to:
1. If I scan with probes, and ignore certain signatures, they should be ignored on the overlay as well. 2. The scan strength should update on the overlay, ie when I get a 100% lock on a signature it should go green on the overlay as well.
Can you address if this kind of functionality is at least in the works? |
Egg McMuff
4
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 13:01:00 -
[813] - Quote
Great Work CCP welldone I like the changes so far!!! |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
338
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 13:05:00 -
[814] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote:
I can understand your hesitance to have some sort of table output for the system overlay (would give use DSP functionality without launching a probe) but are there plans to at least link the systems somewhat. In my opinion the two systems should at least have the capabilities to:
1. If I scan with probes, and ignore certain signatures, they should be ignored on the overlay as well. 2. The scan strength should update on the overlay, ie when I get a 100% lock on a signature it should go green on the overlay as well.
Can you address if this kind of functionality is at least in the works?
I would absolutely want to see this happen. We want to tie these two systems work together as much as possible and will strife to do so in the long run. The issue is that these two systems are being worked on by two different teams, and it is very hard to link them heavily while they are still under development. So we probably will only see a limited connection when Odyseey lands, but hopefully can then address these issues in a point release.
|
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
341
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 13:07:00 -
[815] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Was it intentional to make scanning so easy that there is no need to train anything beyond Astrometrics 3? Wi you consider adjusting signature strengths to compensate for the new system and modules?
We probably will not touch existing signatures all that much, but with these changes we're opening up the possibility for new signatures in the future. We have some plans in this regard, maybe for winter (can't promise anything tough). |
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
341
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 13:09:00 -
[816] - Quote
Rammix wrote:2devs: When an update is coming? Would be good to see some progress on SiSi.
Tomorrow is likely
|
|
Space Wanderer
45
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 13:09:00 -
[817] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: Regarding removing the DSP GÇô the DSP basically allowed people to quickly get a picture of everything in the system (including ships), in a kind of a GÇ£cheatingGÇ¥ way as it didnGÇÖt really use the probe scan system (no triangulation or anything). This and the heavy overlap with the Sensor Overlay system made us decide to remove them. There are other ways to find/track ships in systems; apart from the D-Scan, there are also the combat probes, which really are there to do what the DSP just did better. I should mention that weGÇÖre adjusting the sweep formation to not have any gaps.
Really a matter of opinion on this, but I am pretty sure people will adapt fast with combats, so nothing much to say about this. Personally I believe that the scanning overlay has much potential to be integrated with the directional scanner, and thus become an intel toold that could take the place of local. Hope you want to work along those lines, at least, becasue it really does not make sense to have an overlay that shows every site, but then doe not show the content of the directional scanner, which works exactly in the same way....
CCP SoniClover wrote: Regarding removing options GÇô there has been some criticism that weGÇÖre removing some edge-case functionality in how some players probe scan. Basically what weGÇÖre doing is creating a streamlined method on how to probe scan, but players are not forced to use this method if theyGÇÖre used to scanning differently. WeGÇÖve tried to maintain the old functionality, short-cuts, etc. as much as possible. But weGÇÖre not aiming to make every single method a streamlined version GÇô basically, you can continue to use scan probes in different ways, but there is no guarantee that this is going to be easier/quicker than the streamlined version.
This is where I believe you are dropping the ball, hard.
What you are doing here is to give a working UI to people who use the method YOU like, and a clunky interface to people who do not. From my standpoint it really looks like a child that bring away the ball if the other children don't want to play with the rules he wants.
I hope you realize what you just said: we give you formations if you scan like we tell you. If you don't, even if your method is potentially better than ours, you will have to waste additional time fighting the interface, so our method is better.
Seriously, I DO hope I am not understanding things correctly, because, if I do, this is the most unsandboxy thing that I read since the Incarna debacle, and the most themeparkish addition that I have seen in a LONG time in this game. I really really do hope you'll think long and hard before injecting a theme park approach to scanning. And the way to avoid it is straightforward, just add one or two customizable layouts... |
Rammix
FreeWorkers
60
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 13:15:00 -
[818] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Basically what weGÇÖre doing is creating a streamlined method on how to probe scan, but players are not forced to use this method if theyGÇÖre used to scanning differently. WeGÇÖve tried to maintain the old functionality, short-cuts, etc. as much as possible. But weGÇÖre not aiming to make every single method a streamlined version GÇô basically, you can continue to use scan probes in different ways, but there is no guarantee that this is going to be easier/quicker than the streamlined version.
Just let us save at least 2 custom formations, please.
System scanner needs more "memory": after switching the system map off for a moment then returning to it camera should center on the probes. Newly launched probes should be centered on the ship. When you (re)open the map camera should zoom out to show you the whole system - NOT from horizontal point of view but from above. OpenSUSE 12.2, wine 1.5 |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
343
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 13:27:00 -
[819] - Quote
Space Wanderer wrote:
This is where I believe you are dropping the ball, hard.
What you are doing here is to give a working UI to people who use the method YOU like, and a clunky interface to people who do not. From my standpoint it really looks like a child that bring away the ball if the other children don't want to play with the rules he wants.
Well, if that was the case, we would only create a single method and prohibit all others, which we are not doing.
Space Wanderer wrote: I hope you realize what you just said: we give you formations if you scan like we tell you. If you don't, even if your method is potentially better than ours, you will have to waste additional time fighting the interface, so our method is better.
All I'm saying is that we only have so much bandwidth and we chose to focus our attention on one method, while still aiming to keep as many of the others possible as we can. The key difference here is that while we can strife to keep the options possible, we can't promise to keep them viable. For the most part they should be - the fact you can launch many probes at once for instance should speed up any method you use. Moving your probes into a formation of your own making should also in most cases be no harder or more time consuming than with the current system. You should not be fighting the interface any more than you do currently, etc.
Space Wanderer wrote: Seriously, I DO hope I am not understanding things correctly, because, if I do, this is the most unsandboxy thing that I read since the Incarna debacle, and the most themeparkish addition that I have seen in a LONG time in this game. I really really do hope you'll think long and hard before injecting a theme park approach to scanning. And the way to avoid it is straightforward, just add one or two customizable layouts...
We're not telling people they HAVE to scan in only one way. There is still plenty of wiggle room to improvise and do things your way. On the other hand, the lack of focus of the system is one of the major pain points people have in learning the system and providing them with easier way to learn it is very beneficial IMO. Also, we do plan to allow people to save their own formations at some point, we just don't have time to implement it for Odyssey, but its been in the design from the start. We aim to add it in a point release if time permits.
|
|
Rammix
FreeWorkers
61
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 13:28:00 -
[820] - Quote
Space Wanderer wrote:becasue it really does not make sense to have an overlay that shows every site, but then doe not show the content of the directional scanner, which works exactly in the same way....
If you mean cycled automatic usage of D-scan, it's an awful idea, even if the cycle lasts >10 seconds. At least without complete removal of Local everywhere in EVE. Because it would dumb down cat&mouse gameplay. If a mouse can easily, without effort know that a cat's already on the scene, it screwes up all the fun. For both. OpenSUSE 12.2, wine 1.5 |
|
Tiger Armani
Mialto Corp The Last Chancers.
41
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 13:30:00 -
[821] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:
I can understand your hesitance to have some sort of table output for the system overlay (would give use DSP functionality without launching a probe) but are there plans to at least link the systems somewhat. In my opinion the two systems should at least have the capabilities to:
1. If I scan with probes, and ignore certain signatures, they should be ignored on the overlay as well. 2. The scan strength should update on the overlay, ie when I get a 100% lock on a signature it should go green on the overlay as well.
Can you address if this kind of functionality is at least in the works?
I would absolutely want to see this happen. We want to tie these two systems work together as much as possible and will strife to do so in the long run. The issue is that these two systems are being worked on by two different teams, and it is very hard to link them heavily while they are still under development. So we probably will only see a limited connection when Odyseey lands, but hopefully can then address these issues in a point release.
This is a major flaw in your software development process. This relationship with two separate features should have been addressed from the beginning. |
Sugar Kyle
The humbleless Crew
236
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 13:32:00 -
[822] - Quote
What about the magically reappearing probes when one jumps system? Forgetting probes caused all sorts of cascades from not being able to find targets due to derp to getting locked into wormholes and having to figure out ways to get out or be rescued. Tilde soaked words from something kinda like a pirate. |
Omnathious Deninard
The Scope Gallente Federation
1010
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 13:47:00 -
[823] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Was it intentional to make scanning so easy that there is no need to train anything beyond Astrometrics 3? Wi you consider adjusting signature strengths to compensate for the new system and modules? We probably will not touch existing signatures all that much, but with these changes we're opening up the possibility for new signatures in the future. We have some plans in this regard, maybe for winter (can't promise anything tough). What is making scanning too easy is the 5% per level to scan time reduction, scan deviation reduction, and scan strength. It is too much, maybe 2% to all would be more in-line and then bump the support skills back up to 10% per level. I can understand why you wanted to give the Astrometrics skill something as you can launch 8 probes by default, but 5% per level is just too much. Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes |
Terrorfrodo
Renegade Hobbits for Mordor
447
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 13:50:00 -
[824] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding removing the DSP GÇô the DSP basically allowed people to quickly get a picture of everything in the system (including ships), in a kind of a GÇ£cheatingGÇ¥ way as it didnGÇÖt really use the probe scan system (no triangulation or anything). This and the heavy overlap with the Sensor Overlay system made us decide to remove them. There are other ways to find/track ships in systems; apart from the D-Scan, there are also the combat probes, which really are there to do what the DSP just did better.
This is a valid reason for removing them. You should have given that from the start instead of just asserting that they will be removed because they had become useless ;)
. |
Space Wanderer
45
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 13:56:00 -
[825] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Well, if that was the case, we would only create a single method and prohibit all others, which we are not doing.
Well, during the fascist period in Italy, people were allowed to vote against the fascist party too. It's just that there were strong incentives not to do so. Obviously CCP does not have anything to do with fascism, but I hope you understand my point, it's not enough to say "you are free to do as you wish" when you stack the deck heavily in your favor.
CCP SoniClover wrote:Moving your probes into a formation of your own making should also in most cases be no harder or more time consuming than with the current system.
No argument there. On the other hand moving my probes into a formation of YOUR making will require no time at all. If you can't see the problem right there, I don't know what else to tell. If you DO see the problem, but you don't have the resources to tackle it, see below:
CCP SoniClover wrote:We're not telling people they HAVE to scan in only one way. There is still plenty of wiggle room to improvise and do things your way. On the other hand, the lack of focus of the system is one of the major pain points people have in learning the system and providing them with easier way to learn it is very beneficial IMO. Also, we do plan to allow people to save their own formations at some point, we just don't have time to implement it for Odyssey, but its been in the design from the start. We aim to add it in a point release if time permits.
I think this is the issue. I can certainly understand that you don't have resources to implement formations right away, given the time constraints (I could argue that for this to be an exploration themed expansion CCP seems to have devoted a surprisingly small amount of resources to exploration, but I will not, in this post).
But if you don't want people like me going back to the jita monument, implementing customizable formations is something that should be top priority, and a commitment you should take with your playerbase and the (unconsulted) CSM even before odyssey release. A "we will do that when we have time" is likely to be implemented in a couple of years from now, and in the mean time all kind of damage will have already been done... |
Rammix
FreeWorkers
61
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 13:59:00 -
[826] - Quote
Sugar Kyle wrote:What about the magically reappearing probes when one jumps system? Forgetting probes caused all sorts of cascades from not being able to find targets due to derp to getting locked into wormholes and having to figure out ways to get out or be rescued. -- THIS. You took away a part of gameplay, which often was a source of some player interactions. Please give it back.
BTW, currently on SiSi if you manually call your probes back you have to wait before they return. But if you just leave the system, you get them back instantly. Very odd, if not more.
p.s. The same about probes' lifespan. They need to be mortal. By the same reasons. OpenSUSE 12.2, wine 1.5 |
Space Wanderer
45
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 14:01:00 -
[827] - Quote
Rammix wrote:At least without complete removal of Local everywhere in EVE.
Exactly my point. |
Victors Clone
madmen of the skies
3
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 14:02:00 -
[828] - Quote
Could someone explain to me please all the angriness developed by the fact that the DSP's are beeing removed ? With the new System-Scanner-Thingy, it makes the PvE side of the DSP's obsolete and for their PvP function the Combat-Probes take their place. One solution in solving this redundancy issue could be a Buff for the Combat-Probes in radius (e.g. from MAX_RANGE = 64 to MAX_RANGE = 128). |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
100
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 14:03:00 -
[829] - Quote
Space Wanderer wrote:No argument there. On the other hand moving my probes into a formation of YOUR making will require no time at all. If you can't see the problem right there, I don't know what else to tell
The basic probe pattern is, according to many experienced scanners, inferior to their advanced scanning techniques. Wouldn't it be dumbing down then if these advanced patterns are easily recalled? I wish I were a cat. That way, I could kill things and people would applaud - instead of screaming out "OH GOD NO, NOT MY DAUGHTER!" |
Kitanga
Lowsec Border Marshals
47
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 14:05:00 -
[830] - Quote
there was a WHOLE WEEKEND of merited discussion about DSP and you (CCP SoniClover) dismiss it all with one paragraph?
i think that to compensate for the removal of DSP, that you should allow Combats to expand to 256au. this would be a fair substitute. (and at the same time refund us our SP invested to use DSP)
|
|
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
100
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 14:05:00 -
[831] - Quote
Space Wanderer wrote:Rammix wrote:At least without complete removal of Local everywhere in EVE. Exactly my point.
Yes, if you add the option to hot drop anywhere in eve (well, outside HS obviously) and give easy to use route information to any target anywhere. Deal? I wish I were a cat. That way, I could kill things and people would applaud - instead of screaming out "OH GOD NO, NOT MY DAUGHTER!" |
Space Wanderer
45
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 14:06:00 -
[832] - Quote
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:The basic probe pattern is, according to many experienced scanners, inferior to their advanced scanning techniques. Wouldn't it be dumbing down then if these advanced patterns are easily recalled?
1/10 |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
100
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 14:07:00 -
[833] - Quote
Kitanga wrote:i think that to compensate for the removal of DSP, that you should allow Combats to expand to 256au. this would be a fair substitute. (and at the same time refund us our SP invested to use DSP)
Why would you get SP back? The skill isn't removed and still has valid uses. It would be unfair to refund SP every time a skill changes.
I wish I were a cat. That way, I could kill things and people would applaud - instead of screaming out "OH GOD NO, NOT MY DAUGHTER!" |
TZeer
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
15
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 14:08:00 -
[834] - Quote
Octoven wrote:TZeer wrote:
Still no word about the actual scanning time with combat probes??
C'mon CCP, seriously?
You are about to release a completely redesigned line of battleships, and you haven't fixed the main reason for one of the races bonuses being of no use.
Wake up!
I am completely confused about this statement, are you talking about the new line of battleships or the scanning system??
CCP is redoing the battleships. Cool
CCP is "improving" the scanning/probing. Cool
Caldari as a race, has a range bonus on every T1 battleship they have.
Caldari Battleship Skill Bonuses: +10% to large Hybrid Turret optimal range +4% Shield resistances per level (-1% per level)
Caldari Battleship Skill Bonuses: +5% bonus to Cruise and Torpedo Launcher rate of fire +10% bonus to Cruise Missile Torpedo Velocity
Caldari Battleship Skill Bonuses: 15% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength 25% bonus to ECM Target Jammer optimal and falloff range 25% bonus to ECM Burst range
The apoc of the Amarr also get's a bonus that greatly lean towards ranged combat.
Amarr Battleship Skill Bonuses: +7.5% to Large Energy Turret optimal range +7.5% Large Energy Turret tracking speed (replaced large energy turret cap use)
All this is nice and awesome etc.
But what is not cool, is that proper ranged combat is not, and has not been a viable tactic since the probing time got reduced to 5 sec.
Try and warp in a BS at range and see how fast it will take someone to get your position.
Your position is probed and scanned down before you have even aligned, locked or fired 1 shot.
And CCP just keeps ignoring the issue. |
Olari Vanderfall
Z3R0 RETURN MINING INC. Illusion of Solitude
90
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 14:11:00 -
[835] - Quote
Victors Clone wrote:Could someone explain to me please all the angriness developed by the fact that the DSP's are beeing removed ? With the new System-Scanner-Thingy, it makes the PvE side of the DSP's obsolete and for their PvP function the Combat-Probes take their place. One solution in solving this redundancy issue could be a Buff for the Combat-Probes in radius (e.g. from MAX_RANGE = 64 to MAX_RANGE = 128).
Not everyone used the DSP in this way. I'm looking forward to trying out the changes.
My request is if I create a formation and set the probes at different sizes that it maintains that relationship even if I resize them. If Idrop 8 combats and have 4 at 8au, and the other 4 at 2au if I make them smaller as a group they will go to 4/1 or 2/0.5. Not at the computer to see if it's currently possible but that would offer options for those with Astrometrics 5 and using 8 probes. |
Rammix
FreeWorkers
61
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 14:28:00 -
[836] - Quote
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:Space Wanderer wrote:Rammix wrote:At least without complete removal of Local everywhere in EVE. Exactly my point. Yes, if you add the option to hot drop anywhere in eve (well, outside HS obviously) and give easy to use route information to any target anywhere. Deal? Jumps and kills statistics refreshed every 10-15 minutes would or could solve the problem of finding targets. In addition to the previous, increasing the D-scan range up to 28 a.u. would help, too.
Removal of local - sure is not a thing that can be done with just one functional change, but with the new overlay thingie it can be more real than before. OpenSUSE 12.2, wine 1.5 |
Rammix
FreeWorkers
61
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 14:33:00 -
[837] - Quote
Olari Vanderfall wrote:Victors Clone wrote:Could someone explain to me please all the angriness developed by the fact that the DSP's are beeing removed ? With the new System-Scanner-Thingy, it makes the PvE side of the DSP's obsolete and for their PvP function the Combat-Probes take their place. One solution in solving this redundancy issue could be a Buff for the Combat-Probes in radius (e.g. from MAX_RANGE = 64 to MAX_RANGE = 128). Not everyone used the DSP in this way. I'm looking forward to trying out the changes. My request is if I create a formation and set the probes at different sizes that it maintains that relationship even if I resize them. If Idrop 8 combats and have 4 at 8au, and the other 4 at 2au if I make them smaller as a group they will go to 4/1 or 2/0.5. Not at the computer to see if it's currently possible but that would offer options for those with Astrometrics 5 and using 8 probes. Ability to assign probes to 2 or more different groups controlled separately would be nice too. OpenSUSE 12.2, wine 1.5 |
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
333
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 14:41:00 -
[838] - Quote
All the cahnges are quite good, except the one that the probes reappear magically when u dock or jump out of system or a wh. CCP this EVE, it is ok for people to loose isk by forgetting probes or get stuck in a WH. Making magically appear probes in our cargo holdes IS DUMBING DOWN EVE. Rest is pretty fine. LF CSM8 candidate. Are you what lowsec needs? --->-átinyurl.com/afaawrb
|
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
1365
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 14:47:00 -
[839] - Quote
Victors Clone wrote:Could someone explain to me please all the angriness developed by the fact that the DSP's are beeing removed ? With the new System-Scanner-Thingy, it makes the PvE side of the DSP's obsolete and for their PvP function the Combat-Probes take their place. One solution in solving this redundancy issue could be a Buff for the Combat-Probes in radius (e.g. from MAX_RANGE = 64 to MAX_RANGE = 128).
When the System-Scanner-Thingy can populate my scan results window with a list of sigs it found so I don't have to spin, mouseover, manually write down info, wash repeat, THEN it will replace my DSP's functionality for PVE.
Until then it is merely eye candy and barely useful as a substitute. |
Haseo Antares
Corollary Forest Fairytail.
38
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 14:59:00 -
[840] - Quote
CCP SoniClover,
Can we have the normal list? These bars are not cutting it... We currently have the world's greatest linguists and scientists trying to decode whatn++ you just said. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 50 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |