Trending Games | Pirate101 | ArcheAge | Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn | Wasteland 2

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,859,393 Users Online:0
Games:742  Posts:6,244,519
Zenimax Online Studios | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Final  (rel 04/04/14)  | Pub:Bethesda Softworks
Distribution: | Retail Price:$59.99 | Pay Type:Subscription
System Req: PC Mac Playstation 4 Xbox One | Out of date info? Let us know!

Elder Scrolls Online Forum » General Discussion » What the hell is going on with the anti holy trinity lately

9 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Last Search
166 posts found
  GrayGhost79

Novice Member

Joined: 8/30/08
Posts: 4888

12/18/12 5:06:43 PM#61
Originally posted by Khelden

When I read they were going to release an elder scroll online, I thought it was a great idea...

 

Now, reading a bit on the left and right, I came to learn that the game WON'T have an aggro system. Seriously, after GW2 failfest I don't understand why company still try to go that way. Even in GW2 high end players were recreating a holy trinity by using game gimmicks, which was far from being fun let me add.

 

Being a tank in every game that I play (single player too when I can...), this is simply a big fun killer for me. The holy trinity is nothing but efficient tactic.

 

I don't know, make the game not REQUIRE holy trinity, why not give it a try... But simply DENYING this aspect by not having aggro system at all is just wrong from my point of view.

 

I will probably try the game nonetheless, but my hopes for this game went from high to underground with this.

 

Sources:

 

http://www.elderscrollsguides.com/the-elder-scrolls-online-leaked-info-so-far/

http://www.rpgamer.com/news/Q4-2012/102212a.html

With how succesful GW2 has been and with a large portion of the MMO community asking for the change, the "deal" with it is that it's an outdated mechanic that many if not most seem tired of. Sure there is a smaller subset of MMO gamers that still wants it, there are still small subsets that prefer turn based combat, there will be games for those players. But like all things the vast majority of MMO's will try to find some way to interest those that do not want the holy trinity anymore. 

 

Don't worry, it's just how things work. I'm a huge fan of Skill systems such as UO instead of level based systems, but I am in the minority on that so most MMO's still use the level system. 

 

And while its probably depressing to you to find out that TESO may be doing away with the normal threat mechanics altering if not removing the holy trinity, they will gain a great deal more players than they will lose. 

  Zorgo

Advanced Member

Joined: 12/05/05
Posts: 2212

Who did wrong? The advertiser hired to sell the game or the consumer who put faith in advertising?

12/18/12 5:30:02 PM#62
Originally posted by remyburke
Originally posted by Khelden
Originally posted by ShakyMo
From what I understand TESO while it has healers doesn't have traditional tanks or any threat mechanics

That's my understanding too considering they said someone could play a sneaky healer...

 

But no threat mechanic to go with is a shame.

With no threat mechanics, it sounds more like healers will HAVE to be sneaky. lol

This just can't be right - there must be something we aren't understanding.

If a healer has to be 'sneaky' than that means something the healer does has to, by definition, draw threat; i.e. a healer has to be sneaky to avoid generating threat, ergo - there is a threat mechanic.

What would a 'no threat mechanic' game even look like? 

I mean, if we say, aggro is given to the first to attack, or if we say, aggro has a class priority - all of that is a threat mechanic.

Even if the object being attacked by a mob was generated randomly (like no matter what you do, he's gonna bounce around from group member to group member) ....... well even that is a threat mechanic. It's a random threat mechanic. 

And if this were the case, how could the cleric be 'sneaky'? If threat is generated randomly, theoretically there would be nothing a character, much less a healer could do to avoid it. If there is a way of 'avoiding' threat, then again; there IS a threat mechanic.

So.......I surmise this:

If healer's have to be 'sneaky' there is a threat mechanic.

If healer's have to be 'sneaky' the threat mechanic could be different than we've seen.

But here's the real rub. 

It isn't the trinity that is wrong. It is it's implementation. 

If the following things are implemented in the combat design, the trinity is hella fun:

a. even the best tanks can't hold aggro 100% of the time

b. everyone in the group has an active role in maintaining aggro on the tank (more than just a hate generating buff)

c. crowd control is absolutely essential (in effect making the trinity a quartet*)

d. players have to moderate the use of their skills and abilities to keep from drawing aggro (this can be related and correlated to b.)

e. the chain is only as strong as the weakest link (more of a mantra, meaning, if a tank, healer and 1 dps do their thing, everyone else can pick their nose and you still succeed - the chain is stronger than the weakest link)

f. incentive to live**

g. button mashing not optional. If there is a rotation you can memorize through repetition and get through every fight; it doesn't work. 

h. make combat not about 'when TO push the button' but rather, make combat more about 'when not to push the button'. Example: being able to cc several mobs, then stand back for a sec, assess, discuss, and then act. Make it a frenzy of activity which you can shut down, take a breath, and then re-ignite the frenzy in a controlled manner (if you are in a good group)

__________________

*quartet: I'm not saying this role HAS to be played by 1 player, the 'role' of crowd control could be spread throughout the group or re-imagined in other various ways, but without changing needed classes just as cc as a necessary skill element

**incentive to live: this is my politically correct re-wording of 'harsh death penalty'. I believe when people say death penalty, it is because in the past the harshness of them gave them incentive to live. So imo, that's the crux of the issue. A harsh death penalty certainly can give some people incentive to live, but as we have seen in forums, not everyone by a long shot. So, we always scream for something new for this genre, how about an incentive to live that is NOT a death penalty?

-----------------------------------

But more on topic:

I reserve all judgement about this combat system until I've played it.

I've played awesome tab targetting games.

I've played horrid tab targetting games.

I've played awesome games without tab targetting.

I've played horrid games without tab targetting.

I think it is important to recognize, that it is not the features which necessarily make or break a game. It is their implementation and design. I'd rather play a well designed themepark with well implemented features than a poorly designed sandbox with poorly implemented features. 

It's not the nouns that we should have a problem with, it is the adjectives describing them. 

 

  Khelden

Novice Member

Joined: 12/02/09
Posts: 21

 
OP  12/18/12 5:52:36 PM#63
Originally posted by ShakyMo
Basicly they can make it so you tank pve like you tank pvp.

Like, not at all ? Because unless the game has mechanics forcing players to attack the tank, it is simply ridiculous to do so. I don't remember ever hearing "Focus the tank" during a PVP session.

 

People are really daydreaming about this whole collision and whatnot. In a game without threat, collisions or not the monster could simply move around the tank and grab the squishy, just like it could easily be attracted by pretty much anything. NO THREAT means that, no mechanic to grab the monster aggro. It might even focus the same person for minutes, but not the one you want.

 

Crowd control ? Sure, why not. Let's just ignore PVP since a class fulled up with CC's would be overpowered. Or maybe make a PVP and PVE version of each skills like hummm oh yeah, GW.

 

Some stuff should be copied, others not. No trinity falls in the first category for me. It can be enhanced, but completely removed is simply wrong.

 

Also, people thinking that the trinity is outdated seriousy needs to open their eyes. All the top MMORPG, based on active population world-wide and not on some self-wish, uses the trinity system. There's a very simple reason to this, it works fine.

  ShakyMo

Apprentice Member

Joined: 11/21/11
Posts: 7246

12/18/12 5:58:53 PM#64
If tanks have lots of cc, and things like guard, intercept and hold the line.

Of course you can tank pvp
  ShakyMo

Apprentice Member

Joined: 11/21/11
Posts: 7246

12/18/12 6:02:56 PM#65
Also I'm not saying no trinity. I'm saying the game has no archaic threat mechanics from the 1990s.

It's entirely possible to tank without threat. I've done it in gw1, I've done it in several games that dump threat mechanics on several fights. I've done it in pvp in games that have mechanics for pvp tanking - e.g. gw1, war, swtor (sorta), and..... eq2
  Khelden

Novice Member

Joined: 12/02/09
Posts: 21

 
OP  12/18/12 6:09:04 PM#66
Originally posted by ShakyMo
Also I'm not saying no trinity. I'm saying the game has no archaic threat mechanics from the 1990s.

It's entirely possible to tank without threat. I've done it in gw1, I've done it in several games that dump threat mechanics on several fights. I've done it in pvp in games that have mechanics for pvp tanking - e.g. gw1, war, swtor (sorta), and..... eq2

Dumping threat is far from having no threat at all.

 

As for tanking in GW1, it was nothing close of being fun. It was boring, dumb and used mechanics like cornerblock which relied on bad AI.

  GrayGhost79

Novice Member

Joined: 8/30/08
Posts: 4888

12/18/12 6:09:39 PM#67
Originally posted by Khelden
Originally posted by ShakyMo
Basicly they can make it so you tank pve like you tank pvp.

Like, not at all ? Because unless the game has mechanics forcing players to attack the tank, it is simply ridiculous to do so. I don't remember ever hearing "Focus the tank" during a PVP session.

 

People are really daydreaming about this whole collision and whatnot. In a game without threat, collisions or not the monster could simply move around the tank and grab the squishy, just like it could easily be attracted by pretty much anything. NO THREAT means that, no mechanic to grab the monster aggro. It might even focus the same person for minutes, but not the one you want.

 

Crowd control ? Sure, why not. Let's just ignore PVP since a class fulled up with CC's would be overpowered. Or maybe make a PVP and PVE version of each skills like hummm oh yeah, GW.

 

Some stuff should be copied, others not. No trinity falls in the first category for me. It can be enhanced, but completely removed is simply wrong.

 

Also, people thinking that the trinity is outdated seriousy needs to open their eyes. All the top MMORPG, based on active population world-wide and not on some self-wish, uses the trinity system. There's a very simple reason to this, it works fine.

Read the forums around the web, read what the developers are saying. I'm not saying it doesn't still have it's place, it's just that it's losing main stream appeal just as turn based combat did. It happens. Nothing to get upset at anyone over, it's just the way things work. Quest hubs is getting revamped or removed as well in most newer MMO's for the same reason. MMO's couldn't stay stuck in the 90's forever. The graphics have come a long way, but mechanics have been neglected. 

 

You can wish this weren't the case but it won't change what is. The "Top" mmorpg's don't really exist, most new MMO's flop and are forced to go f2p to survive because they went with old outdated mechanics like The Holy Trinity and Quest hubs. 

The writings on the wall, developers actually have noticed and are making changes and you will see that with very little research. 

 

Now again this doesn't mean no form of the trinity will exist because each developer is going to tackle the dislike for the trinity system in it's own way. TESO is simply getting rid of the outdated threat mechanic (At least thats what it looks like). 

  Khelden

Novice Member

Joined: 12/02/09
Posts: 21

 
OP  12/18/12 6:15:59 PM#68
Originally posted by GrayGhost79

 

Read the forums around the web, read what the developers are saying. I'm not saying it doesn't still have it's place, it's just that it's losing main stream appeal just as turn based combat did. It happens. Nothing to get upset at anyone over, it's just the way things work. Quest hubs is getting revamped or removed as well in most newer MMO's for the same reason. MMO's couldn't stay stuck in the 90's forever. The graphics have come a long way, but mechanics have been neglected. 

 

You can wish this weren't the case but it won't change what is. The "Top" mmorpg's don't really exist, most new MMO's flop and are forced to go f2p to survive because they went with old outdated mechanics like The Holy Trinity and Quest hubs. 

The writings on the wall, developers actually have noticed and are making changes and you will see that with very little research. 

I hope you are kidding. The biggest part of the gaming population doesn't go on forums. Most changes are made on nothing but wish from developers and fall to ashes. It is no surprise that most game fail, most developers are daydreaming. Getting real valuable data from players is expensive because the majority are hard to reach.

 

WoW is still the top MMORPG at the moment according to multiple data and still use "old mechanic". After close to a decade, it is still number one. That is a top MMORPG. It did not try hard, just played its cards with accuracy, made the players comfortable and managed a great marketing.

 

Dropping this kind of mechanic is a good way to simply scare the majority of players, who doesn't even know at the moment that TESO won't have a trinity system.

 

Forums etc. are a good way to see what the most dedicated players want, but they are also a minority.

  moosecatlol

Apprentice Member

Joined: 8/25/10
Posts: 1175

12/18/12 6:20:02 PM#69
But. . . Guild Wars 2 has an aggro system. I'm confused, what is going on here?
  GrayGhost79

Novice Member

Joined: 8/30/08
Posts: 4888

12/18/12 6:23:59 PM#70
Originally posted by Khelden
Originally posted by GrayGhost79

 

Read the forums around the web, read what the developers are saying. I'm not saying it doesn't still have it's place, it's just that it's losing main stream appeal just as turn based combat did. It happens. Nothing to get upset at anyone over, it's just the way things work. Quest hubs is getting revamped or removed as well in most newer MMO's for the same reason. MMO's couldn't stay stuck in the 90's forever. The graphics have come a long way, but mechanics have been neglected. 

 

You can wish this weren't the case but it won't change what is. The "Top" mmorpg's don't really exist, most new MMO's flop and are forced to go f2p to survive because they went with old outdated mechanics like The Holy Trinity and Quest hubs. 

The writings on the wall, developers actually have noticed and are making changes and you will see that with very little research. 

I hope you are kidding. The biggest part of the gaming population doesn't go on forums. Most changes are made on nothing but wish from developers and fall to ashes.

 

WoW is still the top MMORPG at the moment according to multiple data and still use "old mechanic". After close to a decade, it is still number one. That is a top MMORPG. It did not try hard, just played its cards with accuracy, made the players comfortable and managed a great marketing.

 

Dropping this kind of mechanic is a good way to simply scare the majority of players, who doesn't even know at the moment that TESO won't have a trinity system.

 

Forums etc. are a good way to see what the most dedicated players want, but they are also a minority.

lol you take 1 "Top" MMO that isn't growing and count that as evidence that the old mechanics are still popular. This isn't wise at all. The reality is there are endless games after WoW that have used the same mechanics and failed. Keeping these outdated mechanics has PROVEN to be a good way to lose players. 

 

The industry has been slowly changing and it's not just based on forums. It's also based on exit surveys from players leaving a game. It's based on an enormous amount of data collection done by companies hired to do so. It's based on numerous poles, feedback from conventions, and etc. 

 

I only suggested checking the forums for what other forum goers are saying as well as what the developers are saying so that you could get an idea why it's changing and that it's not simply a minority that wants it to change. 

 

 

  Khelden

Novice Member

Joined: 12/02/09
Posts: 21

 
OP  12/18/12 6:28:25 PM#71
Originally posted by moosecatlol
But. . . Guild Wars 2 has an aggro system. I'm confused, what is going on here?

I did tank on my guardian in GW2 using some tactics which involved multiple factors namely closest distance, damage dealt and armor but we could never completely prove it was working as sometimes monsters would focus one of our member during an entire fight.

 

TESO is actually trying to go for the complete removal of aggro, which would mean complete random in acts.

 

 

Originally posted by GrayGhost79
 

lol you take 1 "Top" MMO that isn't growing and count that as evidence that the old mechanics are still popular. This isn't wise at all. The reality is there are endless games after WoW that have used the same mechanics and failed. Keeping these outdated mechanics has PROVEN to be a good way to lose players. 

 

The industry has been slowly changing and it's not just based on forums. It's also based on exit surveys from players leaving a game. It's based on an enormous amount of data collection done by companies hired to do so. It's based on numerous poles, feedback from conventions, and etc. 

 

I only suggested checking the forums for what other forum goers are saying as well as what the developers are saying so that you could get an idea why it's changing and that it's not simply a minority that wants it to change. 

This MMO, while not growing, still have the majority of players even with all the releases done. I would be quite curious to see how many people left it then went back for several reasons.

 

The fact that most players remain in there doesn't mean that Trinity should be removed at all. Multiple games tried to "think out of the box" and failed miserably. Blaming failure on the presence of Trinity is simply bad mouthing. Take Eve for example, the game is somewhat succesful yet it has a kind of Trinity. Aion and Lineage 2 are both also succesful in their country, they also have the trinity.

  UWNVME

Apprentice Member

Joined: 4/16/06
Posts: 174

12/18/12 8:24:58 PM#72

My biggest complaint with the "holy trinity" is that it's outdated and stale. I think pure healing characters are a terrible design and developers who stick with the trinity template have done very little to make healing classes more appealing. There's a reason why WoW has always had a shortage of healers, it's because the vast majority of players when in combat, don't want to play the role whose only purpose is to stand back and target heal whoever's health falls low. It's completely 1-dimensional, so much that in most scenarios, the role of a healer can be done succesfully by a programmable bot.

My belief, is that pure healing needs to be done away with and replaced with a role that's based on supporting using a variety of utility skills such as crowd control, shields, buffs/debuffs, and limited healing. And keep the variety going, let's have both combative support characters who are designed to get in and fight, as well as the more passive ones who don't. This is how I'm hoping GW2's meta will eventually evolve into, and quite frankly I think it's far more interesting than the standard tank/healer/dps.

  st4t1ck

Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/10
Posts: 583

12/19/12 12:06:36 AM#73
Originally posted by UWNVME

My biggest complaint with the "holy trinity" is that it's outdated and stale. I think pure healing characters are a terrible design and developers who stick with the trinity template have done very little to make healing classes more appealing. There's a reason why WoW has always had a shortage of healers, it's because the vast majority of players when in combat, don't want to play the role whose only purpose is to stand back and target heal whoever's health falls low. It's completely 1-dimensional, so much that in most scenarios, the role of a healer can be done succesfully by a programmable bot.

My belief, is that pure healing needs to be done away with and replaced with a role that's based on supporting using a variety of utility skills such as crowd control, shields, buffs/debuffs, and limited healing. And keep the variety going, let's have both combative support characters who are designed to get in and fight, as well as the more passive ones who don't. This is how I'm hoping GW2's meta will eventually evolve into, and quite frankly I think it's far more interesting than the standard tank/healer/dps.

I like the AION clerics. they have good dps builds which is an option for healing class also..

  ragz45

Novice Member

Joined: 5/01/08
Posts: 482

12/19/12 12:16:11 AM#74

Without specifically seeing the AI in action this whole discussion is kind of moot.  There won't be a threat system per say, but we don't know what priority the AI will place on players.  IE will it be proximity, bit hits, healing etc.  Will the mob act in a more realistic manner and swap targets to what ever it sees as the bigger threat at the time?

We need to see the actual AI in action to make judgements.

  Fearum

Hard Core Member

Joined: 1/15/11
Posts: 1092

12/19/12 12:54:45 AM#75

I want to see them extend the trinity to have more functional classes in games, only being able to pick 3 is boring and to be able to do them all with one guy at the same time is even more boring. Older games used to have the classes seperated even more, (DAoC comes to mind) specializing in CC, dots, debuffs, buffs, tanks healers and straight dps etc... Being able to be everything in one is too simple and dumbed down it takes all the strategy out of making groups.

Rifts approach was pretty interesting letting your character switch between roles to adapt to situations but still narrowed it down to 3 roles. GW2 went even more simple by giving everyone the ability to do just about everything. I think classes should have strengths and weaknesses, even building your own character without a class you should be limited in how powerful you can become while taking a hit in another skill. Strategy has become less and less involved with these new breed of games and I think it is what hurts longevity the most. Not housing and other meaningless crap that I see people complaining about.

Developing your character and honing his skills to be the best you could be strategicly in a group is what I used to love most about MMORPG's, I hope they bring some of that back in TESO. As another poster said, we have to wait and see how the AI will perform combat to see the whole system they have in store, until then its all speculation.

  rojoArcueid

Elite Member

Joined: 8/13/09
Posts: 5585

"It is double pleasure to deceive the deceiver". - Niccolo Machiavelli

12/19/12 1:00:16 AM#76

being unable to handle the semi-to-none trinity of GW2 doesnt mean its a failfest. If TESO becomes your typical LF Tank, LF Heal i doubt ill play it. We need more options, thousands of mmo follow the holy trinity, not this one please..... 

i like what GW2 did, its excelent, but there is still room for improvement and TESO can do just that. If i want trinity i play WoW that does it better than anything else, and i dont want to.

 

EDIT: Although Elder Scrolls games are single player they never had trinity, you didnt need to be a tank to survive, or a full healer to stay alive. TESO can work just like that. People complain taht TESO is not a real TES game, then it will be much less of a TES game with a trinity that dont belong to the TES world

My endgame begins with character creation and ends with a new mmorpg

  Loke666

Elite Member

Joined: 10/29/07
Posts: 16710

12/19/12 1:07:56 AM#77
Originally posted by Khelden

When I read they were going to release an elder scroll online, I thought it was a great idea...

Now, reading a bit on the left and right, I came to learn that the game WON'T have an aggro system. Seriously, after GW2 failfest I don't understand why company still try to go that way. Even in GW2 high end players were recreating a holy trinity by using game gimmicks, which was far from being fun let me add.

Being a tank in every game that I play (single player too when I can...), this is simply a big fun killer for me. The holy trinity is nothing but efficient tactic.

I don't know, make the game not REQUIRE holy trinity, why not give it a try... But simply DENYING this aspect by not having aggro system at all is just wrong from my point of view.

I will probably try the game nonetheless, but my hopes for this game went from high to underground with this.

Sources:

http://www.elderscrollsguides.com/the-elder-scrolls-online-leaked-info-so-far/

http://www.rpgamer.com/news/Q4-2012/102212a.html

The thing is that tanking have been pretty bad in MMOs for a long while.

Of course there are other ways to solve this than removing them but something has to be done. A better AI and more focus on bodyblocking while removing taunts would work for example, but tanks makes almost all MMO combats besides huge raids rather boring.

Tanking used to be pretty hard work and that was at least pretty fun but for the last 10 years they have dumbed it down so much that the whole thing either needs to be removed or totally revamped.

A tank must be forced to react and think fast, and tanking needs to be more about positioning and tactics and less about skill rotation if the trinity wants to survive the next 10 years.

Personally wouldnt I miss it, it was a simple system made for Meridian 59 and the idea that you cant invent something better is just silly. Of course a new system takes some time to get used to and many will have problems in the start but MMOs do need to evolve instead of just being even more simplified.

  Caldicot

Advanced Member

Joined: 7/10/07
Posts: 395

Hobbes was right, Rousseau was wrong.

12/19/12 4:20:49 AM#78

I'm hoping to see an intelligent aggro system where NPCs actually "evaluates" the situation and targets the player who poses the biggest threat at any given time. Kinda how a typical PvP session would play out. 

Of course, sometimes you want to intentionally dumb down the AI. For example, a big dumb ogre might start bashing at the first thing he sees.

 

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. - Carl Sagan

  Sasami

Novice Member

Joined: 2/20/08
Posts: 330

12/19/12 7:38:48 AM#79
Originally posted by UWNVME

My biggest complaint with the "holy trinity" is that it's outdated and stale. I think pure healing characters are a terrible design and developers who stick with the trinity template have done very little to make healing classes more appealing. There's a reason why WoW has always had a shortage of healers, it's because the vast majority of players when in combat, don't want to play the role whose only purpose is to stand back and target heal whoever's health falls low. It's completely 1-dimensional, so much that in most scenarios, the role of a healer can be done succesfully by a programmable bot.

My belief, is that pure healing needs to be done away with and replaced with a role that's based on supporting using a variety of utility skills such as crowd control, shields, buffs/debuffs, and limited healing. And keep the variety going, let's have both combative support characters who are designed to get in and fight, as well as the more passive ones who don't. This is how I'm hoping GW2's meta will eventually evolve into, and quite frankly I think it's far more interesting than the standard tank/healer/dps.

WoW fixed this by making boss battles and dungeon fights more mobile. Most mobs force everyone to move all around. Also CC for healers have been part of play style in WoW for years. Aggro is needed because it makes combat less chaos and that's whole point of raiding, how well you can organize chaotic moments. Holy Trinity problem is that it's largely unbalanced in raiding or groups, normally you have 10% Tanks, 30% healer and rest dps. It should be closer to 30% for every role. Also Holy Trinity doesn't fit PvP at all. GW2 showed that all faults that non-aggro system has, it's boring and chaotic mess. 

  BadSpock

Hard Core Member

Joined: 8/21/04
Posts: 7735

Logic be damned!

12/19/12 7:49:57 AM#80

I do miss player collision and how it made tanking viable in PvP...

I probably had the most fun ever in PvP in WAR in early Tier 1 playing as a Black Ork and actually tanking players and blocking ranged attacks against our ranged/healers and being able to harass enemy casters/DPS even if my damage output wasn't great.

But what really took the cake was UO on the Siege Perilous shard playing with an organized RP guild - we'd use the collision detection and swarm tactics to box an enemy player in and just beat on them from four sides at once...

Good times.

Now Playing: Destiny

9 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Last Search