Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Loss Tovas
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
236
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 15:08:00 -
[1] - Quote
There are a lot of great threads today discussing DUST/EVE integration and what the game will play like. Good points all around but the debate seems to continually shift into a K:D/r debate. Something that I think everyone is forgetting is that both sides get to deploy the number of clones they feel is necessary to accomplish the objective. That means the corporation with the most ISK will be able to field the most clones.
In EVE part of why GSA dominate is because they are capable of going 4:1 in numbers. Clones will serve this same purpose. K:D/r is irrelevant if the enemy goes collectively 5k:1d as long as your team is able to field 5 times the clones + your teams collective losses.
I understand that most FPS players can't even be bothered to read long forum posts so most of you won't bother with math... But rest assured, there are guys like me that will apply statistical analysis and crank out all plenty of theoretical totals just to ensure my corporation gets the win.
Remember, the meta-game is everything. |
Jariel Manton
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
210
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 15:16:00 -
[2] - Quote
Interesting... if that is indeed how it works. Either way that is an interesting point, even though being able to have a terrible K/D and still winning is nothing to really be proud of. |
Fivetimes Infinity
Immobile Infantry
1086
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 15:21:00 -
[3] - Quote
I find it unlikely that CCP would allow for Dust mercs to leverage EVE assets such that a big corp like GSA would be able to throw around billions without a second thought. Not every Dust corp will have an EVE connection. Allowing EVE finances to transfer over unrestricted would mean that only EVE-backed corps will be competitive in Dust. That probably isn't a direction they want to take the game. |
Loss Tovas
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
236
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 15:21:00 -
[4] - Quote
Jariel Manton wrote:Interesting... if that is indeed how it works. Either way that is an interesting point, even though being able to have a terrible K/D and still winning is nothing to really be proud of.
Well, then you can have your high K:D/r while "lower-class" players enjoy actually propping up empires. This game, while being an FPS, isn't about the single player. It is about the overall corporation and how it can maintain its sovereignty. New Eden allows players to see "winning" in their own way so for you it can be the K:D/r leader-board. Just don't expect that to mean anything to any other player. |
Loss Tovas
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
236
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 15:23:00 -
[5] - Quote
Fivetimes Infinity wrote:I find it unlikely that CCP would allow for Dust mercs to leverage EVE assets such that a big corp like GSA would be able to throw around billions without a second thought. Not every Dust corp will have an EVE connection. Allowing EVE finances to transfer over unrestricted would mean that only EVE-backed corps will be competitive in Dust. That probably isn't a direction they want to take the game.
I am not talking about that at all. I am talking about inflating the number of respawns to out compete high K:D/r players. It would be an effective tactic if the goal is to run the clock out. As was said in another thread, 1 billion ISK is nothing in EVE and I can tell you the same will be true in DUST. No GSA required. |
ChargersGirlLuvsDP
Osmon Surveillance Caldari State
49
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 15:23:00 -
[6] - Quote
Jariel Manton wrote:Interesting... if that is indeed how it works. Either way that is an interesting point, even though being able to have a terrible K/D and still winning is nothing to really be proud of. KDR isn't everything, so what you have 9 028 468 767 372:1 KDR here's your cookie and complimentary ***** pump. If you can't win a match, is anyone going to care what your KDR is aside from you and your mommy? Are you going to get contracts?
No, WLR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KDR. |
Katya Thurn
Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 15:26:00 -
[7] - Quote
DUST 514 will mainly be about Factional Warfare interaction with EVE Online. GSF are not really involved in Factional Warfare as they are too involved with wars in nul-sec and market manipulation in high sec. Granted they will no doubt take an interest in DUST 514 but I do not foresee a monopoly situation developing. |
SYST3M 0V3RL0AD
Zumari Force Projection Caldari State
209
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 15:29:00 -
[8] - Quote
Jariel Manton wrote:Interesting... if that is indeed how it works. Either way that is an interesting point, even though being able to have a terrible K/D and still winning is nothing to really be proud of.
A win is a win. Is it better to lose the fight and be proud your K/D was good?
[Warning: Link contains strong language]
|
Zerlathon
Algintal Core Gallente Federation
213
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 15:37:00 -
[9] - Quote
Loss Tovas wrote:Fivetimes Infinity wrote:I find it unlikely that CCP would allow for Dust mercs to leverage EVE assets such that a big corp like GSA would be able to throw around billions without a second thought. Not every Dust corp will have an EVE connection. Allowing EVE finances to transfer over unrestricted would mean that only EVE-backed corps will be competitive in Dust. That probably isn't a direction they want to take the game. I am not talking about that at all. I am talking about inflating the number of respawns to out compete high K:D/r players. It would be an effective tactic if the goal is to run the clock out. As was said in another thread, 1 billion ISK is nothing in EVE and I can tell you the same will be true in DUST. No GSA required.
You are aware that there is also a clone count on objective based games aswell right?
The only way I believe that zerging can be executed effectively in Dust, is the timed assaults on multiple regions of enemy territory.
This is all speculation though... I could be completely wrong.
On a last note, although I do agree with the opinion that metagiming is going to play a fundimental part of Dust. I don't think that it's going to always be a case of who has the bigger wallet.
There are various paths to victory... wealth is only 1. |
Will Navidson2
Doomheim
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 15:47:00 -
[10] - Quote
Can you please add a link to the information about fielded clones? Because the way I read it was the number of players on each team will not have to be even, and you could field less players if you wanted. |
|
Entruv
Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic
32
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 15:58:00 -
[11] - Quote
Jariel Manton wrote:Interesting... if that is indeed how it works. Either way that is an interesting point, even though being able to have a terrible K/D and still winning is nothing to really be proud of.
In Eve no one will care about the K/D ratio. Only the resources the players will have control of. Those who control the resources control the ISK...Let the spice flow...
|
Nate Silverley
Rebelles A Quebec
139
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 16:07:00 -
[12] - Quote
Loss Tovas wrote:There are a lot of great threads today discussing DUST/EVE integration and what the game will play like. Good points all around but the debate seems to continually shift into a K:D/r debate. Something that I think everyone is forgetting is that both sides get to deploy the number of clones they feel is necessary to accomplish the objective. That means the corporation with the most ISK will be able to field the most clones.
In EVE part of why GSA dominate is because they are capable of going 4:1 in numbers. Clones will serve this same purpose. K:D/r is irrelevant if the enemy goes collectively 5k:1d as long as your team is able to field 5 times the clones + your teams collective losses.
I understand that most FPS players can't even be bothered to read long forum posts so most of you won't bother with math... But rest assured, there are guys like me that will apply statistical analysis and crank out all plenty of theoretical totals just to ensure my corporation gets the win.
Remember, the meta-game is everything.
If I understand this correctly, during any single match, a corporation might run out of clones to field GÇö meaning they would forfeit their ability to win simply because of their lack of financial capability.
I find this interesting and incredibly game-changing. This means being friends with a rich EvE corp in Dust means more power than going brick and mortar starting from Dust (hah) only.
I wonder what would be the incentive for a corp who'd rather go the latter way ?
|
Avenger 245
Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation
477
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 22:14:00 -
[13] - Quote
Jariel Manton wrote:Interesting... if that is indeed how it works. Either way that is an interesting point, even though being able to have a terrible K/D and still winning is nothing to really be proud of.
The goons are proud of their accomplishments, they use mass to overrun everyone else. they dont care about kdr they care about territroy and is easy to be proud over own and controlling territroy rather than a high kdr. |
Rayan Storm
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
358
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 22:24:00 -
[14] - Quote
Avenger 245 wrote:Jariel Manton wrote:Interesting... if that is indeed how it works. Either way that is an interesting point, even though being able to have a terrible K/D and still winning is nothing to really be proud of. The goons are proud of their accomplishments, they use mass to overrun everyone else. they dont care about kdr they care about territroy and is easy to be proud over own and controlling territroy rather than a high kdr.
Goons = 'toopid |
Sees-Too-Much
332
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 22:31:00 -
[15] - Quote
Fivetimes Infinity wrote:I find it unlikely that CCP would allow for Dust mercs to leverage EVE assets such that a big corp like GSA would be able to throw around billions without a second thought. Not every Dust corp will have an EVE connection. Allowing EVE finances to transfer over unrestricted would mean that only EVE-backed corps will be competitive in Dust. That probably isn't a direction they want to take the game. I wanna go back to this post, because I think there's some misunderstandings worth addressing.
Specifically, the concept of "EVE-backed corps". We have a lot of people who are thinking of EVE and DUST as separate and distinct worlds that interact in a few gimmicky ways. The way CCP is taking this indicates otherwise. DUST corps and EVE corps are the same thing. When we go live you'll be able to join a corp founded and run by capsuleers just like one of them.
So we have to stop thinking of it in terms of "corp with better EVE friends" and start thinking in terms of "corp with better resources". Because the resources that EVE corp has are your resources, and vice versa. |
Maken Tosch
Planetary Response Organisation Test Friends Please Ignore
1591
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 23:20:00 -
[16] - Quote
Zerlathon wrote:You are aware that there is also a clone count on objective based games aswell right? The only way I believe that zerging can be executed effectively in Dust, is the timed assaults on multiple regions of enemy territory. This is all speculation though... I could be completely wrong. On a last note, although I do agree with the opinion that metagiming is going to play a fundimental part of Dust. I don't think that it's going to always be a case of who has the bigger wallet. There are various paths to victory... wealth is only 1.
You are correct to assume that wealth is one way to victory. Corporate espionage is another way. Imagine stealing corporate assets from your own Corp mates just before a very critical battle starts. Or when you activate a sleeper cell within the ranks of your enemy's troops on the ground by telling him to go team kill everyone.
About the clone count that you mentioned, please remember that we are fighting under NPC contracts. Clone counts will be limited as expected. But once you join a Corp battle, suddenly everything changes. |
Zekain Kade
BetaMax.
931
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 01:38:00 -
[17] - Quote
Both sides have a unit cap.
KD will play a massive roll when both sides are filled. The side with the worst general KD will lose.
it's really as simple as that. |
Shijima Kuraimaru
WarRavens
167
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 01:55:00 -
[18] - Quote
Sees-Too-Much wrote:Fivetimes Infinity wrote:I find it unlikely that CCP would allow for Dust mercs to leverage EVE assets such that a big corp like GSA would be able to throw around billions without a second thought. Not every Dust corp will have an EVE connection. Allowing EVE finances to transfer over unrestricted would mean that only EVE-backed corps will be competitive in Dust. That probably isn't a direction they want to take the game. I wanna go back to this post, because I think there's some misunderstandings worth addressing. Specifically, the concept of "EVE-backed corps". We have a lot of people who are thinking of EVE and DUST as separate and distinct worlds that interact in a few gimmicky ways. The way CCP is taking this indicates otherwise. DUST corps and EVE corps are the same thing. When we go live you'll be able to join a corp founded and run by capsuleers just like one of them. So we have to stop thinking of it in terms of "corp with better EVE friends" and start thinking in terms of "corp with better resources". Because the resources that EVE corp has are your resources, and vice versa.
It's true. Eve is such a different game and Dust, if it goes in the way CCP has described, is going to whiz off a lot of people who play CoD/MoH styled PvP FPS. But that's their problem. Dust and Eve are going to be two different aspects of the same game and that's awesome. I can't wait to get fully into Amarr gear and start training up my lasers and repair skills. And when I can get my Eve account reactivated, I might be supplying planetary bombardment with my already fully mastered turret and laser skills. T2 Mega Pulse or Tachyons with double True Sansha Heat Sinks for maximum damage. Of course if it can be fitted for planetary bombardment... A Revelation with Meta 1 Gigapulses would be truly evil. |
Baal Roo
Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
811
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 01:59:00 -
[19] - Quote
This same basic principle even applies to the current skirmish matches. I've yet to encounter a skirmish match that was determined by one side's clones being depleted. Thus, the zerg rush can actually be pretty effective.
I've had a squad hold almost an entire opposing team to a single objective simply by surrounding it with Uplinks and continously spawning and rushing the objective. All of a sudden, 4 guys each only lasting 5 seconds or so a life, can feel like an onslaught from an entire team.
So, just as a hypothetical, let's imagine my team has 2 objectives and yours has 1. If my team can zerg rush your team at that 1 objective and effectively hold your team there in a constant state of defense, it doesn't matter if your team goes 5:1 and my team goes 1:5... we will win the match because your MCC will fall before ours does.
Sure, it's may not be as "brag worthy" from the perspective of the FPS veteran who thinks in terms of KDR, but from the perspective of "play smarter, not harder" it's pretty brag worthy to say "we outsmarted you, won the match, and did it CHEAPER too".
I'll put my stick skills up against probably all but the top 10-15% of console FPS players out there, but I'm perfectly willing to go into negative KDR for a match if there's a tactical advantage to doing so... and if you can't see any tactical reasons for ever going negative, then IMO that just shows a lack of understanding of the bigger picture and makes you a less valuable player both on AND off the battlefield. |
Zekain Kade
BetaMax.
931
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 02:02:00 -
[20] - Quote
Baal Roo wrote:This same basic principle even applies to the current skirmish matches. I've yet to encounter a skirmish match that was determined by one side's clones being depleted. Thus, the zerg rush can actually be pretty effective.
I've had a squad hold almost an entire opposing team to a single objective simply by surrounding it with Uplinks and continously spawning and rushing the objective. All of a sudden, 4 guys each only lasting 5 seconds or so a life, can feel like an onslaught from an entire team.
So, just as a hypothetical, let's imagine my team has 2 objectives and yours has 1. If my team can zerg rush your team at that 1 objective and effectively hold your team there in a constant state of defense, it doesn't matter if your team goes 5:1 and my team goes 1:5... we will win the match because your MCC will fall before ours does.
Sure, it's may not be as "brag worthy" from the perspective of the FPS veteran who thinks in terms of KDR, but from the perspective of "play smarter, not harder" it's pretty brag worthy to say "we outsmarted you, won the match, and did it CHEAPER too".
I'll put my stick skills up against probably all but the top 10-15% of console FPS players out there, but I'm perfectly willing to go into negative KDR for a match if there's a tactical advantage to doing so... and if you can't see any tactical reasons for ever going negative, then IMO that just shows a lack of understanding of the bigger picture and makes you a less valuable player both on AND off the battlefield. What if your team actually loses because your zerg rush exhausted your entire clone reserve?
Will you feel proud then?
|
|
Baal Roo
Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
811
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 02:05:00 -
[21] - Quote
Zekain Kade wrote:Baal Roo wrote:This same basic principle even applies to the current skirmish matches. I've yet to encounter a skirmish match that was determined by one side's clones being depleted. Thus, the zerg rush can actually be pretty effective.
I've had a squad hold almost an entire opposing team to a single objective simply by surrounding it with Uplinks and continously spawning and rushing the objective. All of a sudden, 4 guys each only lasting 5 seconds or so a life, can feel like an onslaught from an entire team.
So, just as a hypothetical, let's imagine my team has 2 objectives and yours has 1. If my team can zerg rush your team at that 1 objective and effectively hold your team there in a constant state of defense, it doesn't matter if your team goes 5:1 and my team goes 1:5... we will win the match because your MCC will fall before ours does.
Sure, it's may not be as "brag worthy" from the perspective of the FPS veteran who thinks in terms of KDR, but from the perspective of "play smarter, not harder" it's pretty brag worthy to say "we outsmarted you, won the match, and did it CHEAPER too".
I'll put my stick skills up against probably all but the top 10-15% of console FPS players out there, but I'm perfectly willing to go into negative KDR for a match if there's a tactical advantage to doing so... and if you can't see any tactical reasons for ever going negative, then IMO that just shows a lack of understanding of the bigger picture and makes you a less valuable player both on AND off the battlefield. What if your team actually loses because your zerg rush exhausted your entire clone reserve? Will you feel proud then?
Have you seen that happen yet? I sure haven't. I guess it's possible, but it's yet to have been an issue.
If such a thing DID happen, then yeah, that was a bad plan and my squad would necessarily be required to feel bad. |
Zekain Kade
BetaMax.
931
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 02:08:00 -
[22] - Quote
I have seen it happen, only once though.
it was on that rocky, stormy map.
Tanks were everywhere. |
Nova Knife
Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State
786
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 02:13:00 -
[23] - Quote
For those interested in knowing, the score/leaderboard will be changing soon. The new 'important stat' is ISK Efficiency. Doing as much damage as possible with little losses. The scoreboard will also list warpoint gain as well, further shifting focus away from KDR. |
Maken Tosch
Planetary Response Organisation Test Friends Please Ignore
1591
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 02:16:00 -
[24] - Quote
Zekain Kade wrote:Both sides have a unit cap.
KD will play a massive roll when both sides are filled. The side with the worst general KD will lose.
it's really as simple as that.
Not entirely. On an ambush map, you're right. But the rules seem to change with skirmish maps.
Just today I fought in a Skirmish Map where my team held all 5 objectives with absolutely no trouble. A few enemy mercs tried to hack one objective here and there, but they were quickly countered early in the game. The rest of the match was just basically cornering the opposing team on their own default spawn points. Of course, we won.
But here is the quirk in the whole thing. My team had the absolute worst KDR in the match with one or two of us having double digits (even then their score was low). The opposing team, who we just face r a p e d the whole match, had an astonishing KDR across the board with some of their players reaching high double digits while the rest had moderate double digits. I found it to be completely odd. |
HowDidThatTaste
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
2242
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 02:22:00 -
[25] - Quote
Nova Knife wrote:For those interested in knowing, the score/leaderboard will be changing soon. The new 'important stat' is ISK Efficiency. Doing as much damage as possible with little losses. The scoreboard will also list warpoint gain as well, further shifting focus away from KDR.
Out of curiosity were did you get this information? |
Baal Roo
Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
811
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 02:23:00 -
[26] - Quote
Maken Tosch wrote:Zekain Kade wrote:Both sides have a unit cap.
KD will play a massive roll when both sides are filled. The side with the worst general KD will lose.
it's really as simple as that. Not entirely. On an ambush map, you're right. But the rules seem to change with skirmish maps. Just today I fought in a Skirmish Map where my team held all 5 objectives with absolutely no trouble. A few enemy mercs tried to hack one objective here and there, but they were quickly countered early in the game. The rest of the match was just basically cornering the opposing team on their own default spawn points. Of course, we won. But here is the quirk in the whole thing. My team had the absolute worst KDR in the match without one or two of us having double digits (even then their score was low). The opposing team, who we just face r a p e d the whole match, had an astonishing KDR across the board with some of their players reaching high double digits whole the rest had moderate double digits. I found it to be completely odd.
I find the KDR to be almost entirely irrelevant most of the time for Skirmish maps. If you pulled up the KDR from 20 randomly chosen skirmish matches and tried to guess which team won the match purely on that statistic, I'm fairly certain you would do no better than 50/50. KDR seems to have almost no bearing at all on the outcome of skirmish. |
Leither Yiltron
KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION
417
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 02:27:00 -
[27] - Quote
Loss Tovas wrote:There are a lot of great threads today discussing DUST/EVE integration and what the game will play like. Good points all around but the debate seems to continually shift into a K:D/r debate. Something that I think everyone is forgetting is that both sides get to deploy the number of clones they feel is necessary to accomplish the objective. That means the corporation with the most ISK will be able to field the most clones.
In EVE part of why GSA dominate is because they are capable of going 4:1 in numbers. Clones will serve this same purpose. K:D/r is irrelevant if the enemy goes collectively 5k:1d as long as your team is able to field 5 times the clones + your teams collective losses.
I understand that most FPS players can't even be bothered to read long forum posts so most of you won't bother with math... But rest assured, there are guys like me that will apply statistical analysis and crank out all plenty of theoretical totals just to ensure my corporation gets the win.
Remember, the meta-game is everything.
Errr, no. The problem is that you don't understand how Dust has to work. You can't just field 5 times the clones for a match, because that would make a match take 5 times as long. That's not something they're going to do. |
Maken Tosch
Planetary Response Organisation Test Friends Please Ignore
1591
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 02:29:00 -
[28] - Quote
Baal Roo wrote:Zekain Kade wrote:Baal Roo wrote:This same basic principle even applies to the current skirmish matches. I've yet to encounter a skirmish match that was determined by one side's clones being depleted. Thus, the zerg rush can actually be pretty effective.
I've had a squad hold almost an entire opposing team to a single objective simply by surrounding it with Uplinks and continously spawning and rushing the objective. All of a sudden, 4 guys each only lasting 5 seconds or so a life, can feel like an onslaught from an entire team.
So, just as a hypothetical, let's imagine my team has 2 objectives and yours has 1. If my team can zerg rush your team at that 1 objective and effectively hold your team there in a constant state of defense, it doesn't matter if your team goes 5:1 and my team goes 1:5... we will win the match because your MCC will fall before ours does.
Sure, it's may not be as "brag worthy" from the perspective of the FPS veteran who thinks in terms of KDR, but from the perspective of "play smarter, not harder" it's pretty brag worthy to say "we outsmarted you, won the match, and did it CHEAPER too".
I'll put my stick skills up against probably all but the top 10-15% of console FPS players out there, but I'm perfectly willing to go into negative KDR for a match if there's a tactical advantage to doing so... and if you can't see any tactical reasons for ever going negative, then IMO that just shows a lack of understanding of the bigger picture and makes you a less valuable player both on AND off the battlefield. What if your team actually loses because your zerg rush exhausted your entire clone reserve? Will you feel proud then? Have you seen that happen yet? I sure haven't. I guess it's possible, but it's yet to have been an issue. If such a thing DID happen, then yeah, that was a bad plan and my squad would necessarily be required to feel bad.
I agree as well.
But then again, I have never seen a skirmish match in which one side ran out of clone reserves and I have been playing the beta since May this year.
Not only that, you have to remember that we are fighting under NPC contracts with only the necessary amount of clones needed to complete the objective under normal circumstances. Therefore I get the strange feeling that the corp battles will have much higher clone reserves supplied mainly by the ultra-rich Eve corps (who we can join through Dust soon). This will encourage more zerg tactics. |
Noob Noobuler
Algintal Core Gallente Federation
79
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 02:39:00 -
[29] - Quote
bump 4 interest |
Brumae Verres
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 02:43:00 -
[30] - Quote
Leither Yiltron wrote:Loss Tovas wrote:There are a lot of great threads today discussing DUST/EVE integration and what the game will play like. Good points all around but the debate seems to continually shift into a K:D/r debate. Something that I think everyone is forgetting is that both sides get to deploy the number of clones they feel is necessary to accomplish the objective. That means the corporation with the most ISK will be able to field the most clones.
In EVE part of why GSA dominate is because they are capable of going 4:1 in numbers. Clones will serve this same purpose. K:D/r is irrelevant if the enemy goes collectively 5k:1d as long as your team is able to field 5 times the clones + your teams collective losses.
I understand that most FPS players can't even be bothered to read long forum posts so most of you won't bother with math... But rest assured, there are guys like me that will apply statistical analysis and crank out all plenty of theoretical totals just to ensure my corporation gets the win.
Remember, the meta-game is everything. Errr, no. The problem is that you don't understand how Dust has to work. You can't just field 5 times the clones for a match, because that would make a match take 5 times as long. That's not something they're going to do.
Who is this they? CCP? The same people who made eve and have no restrictions in terms of pvp? Or the cod/mag/bf gods who smack kids on the head and say, 'go be awesome! In the name of kdr!'.
As in eve, if you can, do. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |