EVE Search - Death to Attributes

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Death to Attributes

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Taleden North Wind Local no. 612 49	Posted - 2013.07.10 12:36:00 - [1] - Quote The following was originally posted in the Odyssey 1.1 Skill Renaming thread, but was completely buried in the flood of feedback so I'd like to give this separate discussion its own thread. A lot of folks asked about the attributes of the proposed reorganization of the skill tree, but only in terms of preserving the current scheme of primary/secondary attributes affecting training time and having consistent patterns of those attributes across skills within a group. I'd like to take that discussion a step further and ask whether attributes' effects on skill training time are really a game mechanic we want to keep, or whether it's time to let them go. The upside of that system is that it allows people to feel like they're tailoring their character toward what they want to do -- combat pilots can remap to per/wil to train almost all ship command and weapons skills, while industry characters can remap to int/mem to train science and production skills. But the system has significant downsides as well -- it encourages people to not train skills that they could use in the short term, simply because training against their current remap would be "less efficient" than waiting until they can remap attributes. This is especially bothersome for brand new combat pilots who need lots of int/mem support skills to go with their per/wil combat skills. Those pilots must make a lame choice: train "inefficiently" in order to get all the skills they need, or use up bonus remaps or wait over a year before they can be combat-effective. I'm not sure the upsides really outweigh the downsides at this point. A similar conclusion was made about the Learning skills years ago, and I think that was the correct one, but I think it's time now to make the next step and do away with attributes affecting skill training time. The simple fix is to just remove attributes entirely, but that would be frowned on by everyone who's invested in expensive implants. Another possible alternative is to let attributes grant some slight amplification of the skills they affect, rather than a training time bonus. So, for example, remapping to per/wil grants an extra +5% amplifier to all skills which are governed by per/wil (i.e. Surgical Strike grants +3% turret damage per level if you're remapped to int/mem, but +3.15% per level if you're mapped per/wil). Regardless, I'd love some discussion of whether the skill training time optimization mechanic via attributes and remaps is really an interesting enough game mechanic to be worth the un-fun waiting-to-train or training-inefficiently gameplay that it brings along with it. Finally, since Ripard Teg's opinion surely carries more weight than mine, here is his similar take on this subject from a few years ago: http://jestertrek.blogspot.com/2011/10/death-to-attributes.html Discuss!
hmskrecik TransMine Group German Information Network Alliance 89	Posted - 2013.07.10 12:43:00 - [2] - Quote INB4 choices and consequences... In my opinion attributes don't change much in the game play and this on its own is the good reason to remove them. On the other hand, leaving them as they are is not game breaker too.
Zappity Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 169	Posted - 2013.07.10 12:59:00 - [3] - Quote I don't like the attributes system. I detest learning implants. Look at the whole thing again and figure out a way to stop skill queues getting in the way of PvP and other fun activities. So, yes. More or less supported. Hooray, I'm l33t! -á(Kil2: "The higher their ship losses...the better they're going to be.")
Roime Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo 3096	Posted - 2013.07.10 13:03:00 - [4] - Quote Choices and consequences are the unique flavor of this game. If everything is made "fun" and "easy", people will just unsub. -á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars -
Gawain Edmond Angry Mustellid 9	Posted - 2013.07.10 13:05:00 - [5] - Quote so what would decide how long something takes to train for and how would you train for something faster than normal? (normal being balanced stats faster than normal being weighted stats) that being said i do like the attributes affecting skills would be like D&D in space! :D
Zappity Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 169	Posted - 2013.07.10 13:13:00 - [6] - Quote Roime wrote: Choices and consquences are the unique flavor of this game. If everything is made "fun" and "easy", people will just unsub. Then double clone costs... It's about balance. The attribute system does more harm than good. Hooray, I'm l33t! -á(Kil2: "The higher their ship losses...the better they're going to be.")
hmskrecik TransMine Group German Information Network Alliance 89	Posted - 2013.07.10 13:20:00 - [7] - Quote Roime wrote: Choices and consequences are the unique flavor of this game. Choices and consequences are the unique flavor of EVERY game. If you're not making choices it means you're watching a movie. If there are no consequences it means your gamepad is broken. Quote: If everything is made "fun" and "easy", people will just unsub. And so they will if something is deliberately made PITA. Fortunately this discussion is about neither approach.
Zappity Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 169	Posted - 2013.07.10 13:24:00 - [8] - Quote I doubt they'll get rid of attributes but I hope they do something about learning implants. They should have gone when the learning skills did. Boosters would be a good solution. Hooray, I'm l33t! -á(Kil2: "The higher their ship losses...the better they're going to be.")
Freighdee Katt Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 266	Posted - 2013.07.10 13:39:00 - [9] - Quote This goes somewhat hand in hand with clone costs, which are also a major issue, even after the reduction. Clone costs mean vet toons do not want to undock for PvP simply because even an empty clone is an order of magnitude greater loss than the cheap frigate or cruiser they might want to take out on a roam. One answer to that, which I have suggested before, is replace clone costs with clone insurance. The "premium" for high SP clones might be the same as the current clone cost, but the difference is you're covered for the term of the insurance, regardless how many times you get podded. It's still an ISK sink, and in fact it's a more effective one because people have to renew every time insurance expires, if they are flying the clone. As it is now, 100m SP vet toons might go years without paying any clone costs, just because they never do anything that results in losing a clone. Learning implants have more or less the same discouraging effect. If you want to keep your SP/hr up at a peak level, then you have to put in those expensive +5s, and risk them when you undock. You can mitigate it a little by keeping split clones with Per/Wil in one and Int/Mem in another. But the cost is still there. If you are going to get podded a lot, your only real choice is to fly with a clean clone, nerfing your SP/hr gain. That's kind of a puzzling outcome: Nerfing the skill gain for a player who is playing the game MORE actively and assuming MORE risk in doing so. The answer to this could be removing learning implants and the attribute buff from mixed implants like the pirate set. You could keep the ISK / risk vs. performance choices that go along with purely skill buffing hardwirings and pirate sets, and then the choice would just be how much ISK in your head are you willing to risk to get that extra edge in combat. The choice there would just be the same as every other choice you make about that to undock in; more ISK undocked means more performance, but if you lose it also means more loss. The idea of just removing inherent attributes and making all skills train at a constant 2,700 SP / hr without attributes having anything to do with it is a good one. It would encourage new players to train skills because those skills make some sense with their goals and the way they fly, rather than trying to "optimize" or wasting scarce remaps that are almost always squandered before new players even know what they're good for. It also would help a great deal in getting new players to train support skills early and to train a wide variety of things to III or IV rather than thinking they "have to max out ships and guns cause I'm stuck on per/wil for a year." If attributes and remaps remain, then increasing access to remaps, and exploiting the obvious revenue potential of selling them for PLEX or $20 a pop, would at least allow CCP to justify keeping attributes and mappings on the basis that more money is good for the game, and if players make mistakes or want to switch around more, they can always pay for that privilege. Bittervets will ***** about either option, but the bitching that comes of this always amounts to the same thing: We had to put up with this crappy system, so you should too. And get off mah lawn! That's a "reason" to keep a crappy system. But it's not a good one.
Arya Regnar Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 44	Posted - 2013.07.10 13:42:00 - [10] - Quote -1 to this entire idea. Removing diversity from complex game ruins it. And yes, choices. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Sergeant Acht Scultz School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 963	Posted - 2013.07.10 14:17:00 - [11] - Quote Roime wrote: Choices and consequences are the unique flavor of this game. If everything is made "fun" and "easy", people will just unsub. This was the same argument when first learning skills threads show up, yet the stupidity of learning to learn is now off despite a huge number of posts and rage to keep it (most of those were nothing but alts from same dudes anyway and for this idea that will be exactly the same) Edit: you could keep at equal numbers all attributes with no implants vs another with specific remap and still no implants, before the specific remap one takes a huge step above the one with all equal attributes it will take a couple years. The immediate gain is not that important to say it has to be kept because it's an important choice, well it is not really one. The impact for having specific attributes and implants should be much higher to be a real matter of important choices. removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Freighdee Katt Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 266	Posted - 2013.07.10 14:18:00 - [12] - Quote Taleden wrote: Finally, since Ripard Teg's opinion surely carries more weight than mine, here is his similar take on this subject from a few years ago: http://jestertrek.blogspot.com/2011/10/death-to-attributes.html It's a good explanation of why they should die, and says all there is to say really.
RoAnnon Strategic Acquisitions Group Tactical Research Lab 106	Posted - 2013.07.10 14:42:00 - [13] - Quote Taleden wrote: it encourages people to not train skills that they could use in the short term, simply because training against their current remap would be "less efficient" than waiting until they can remap attributes. This is especially bothersome for brand new combat pilots who need lots of int/mem support skills to go with their per/wil combat skills. Those pilots must make a lame choice: train "inefficiently" in order to get all the skills they need, or use up bonus remaps or wait over a year before they can be combat-effective. I don't see this point as a downside. If you take out attributes you move EVE that much closer to a World-of-Tanks-esque shooter. -1 to this idea from me as well. So, you're a bounty hunter. No, that ain't it at all. Then what are you? I'm a bounty hunter.
hmskrecik TransMine Group German Information Network Alliance 89	Posted - 2013.07.10 14:45:00 - [14] - Quote RoAnnon wrote: I don't see this point as a downside. If you take out attributes you move EVE that much closer to a World-of-Tanks-esque shooter. Skills themselves make difference. Attributes don't.
RoAnnon Strategic Acquisitions Group Tactical Research Lab 106	Posted - 2013.07.10 15:07:00 - [15] - Quote hmskrecik wrote: Skills themselves make difference. Attributes don't. Not sure I understand your point. The OP seems to be upset about poor training time modifiers and people having to train "inefficiently", so he suggests removing the very mechanic through which he is able to identify that inefficiency. I'm still not seeing why this is an issue. I've read all the posts so far supporting the removal of attribute training time bonuses and am just scratching my head. I really have nothing more useful to add to the discussion so I'll leave y'all to it. So, you're a bounty hunter. No, that ain't it at all. Then what are you? I'm a bounty hunter.
Sergeant Acht Scultz School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 963	Posted - 2013.07.10 15:16:00 - [16] - Quote RoAnnon wrote: hmskrecik wrote: Skills themselves make difference. Attributes don't. Not sure I understand your point. Simple take Evemon and set a plan for a T2 fitted frigate, pick one character with equal attributes and another with specific remap, you can choose to put on both 0 implants and on both +5 implants. 1st at some point the specific remap will have a huge cost on another attributes skill thus reducing the impact of that specific remap. 2nd the difference in training time for both and for said plan is not significant Where the difference comes in to play is only how you plan your skill training over time, are you going directly to lvl5's of first up to 3's then 5's, mechanics or engineering, gunnery or electronics etc. Even then after a couple years the difference in between will be not very significant, once you have core skills trained what the heck difference it makes? Once you have your spaceship command skills trained what the heck difference it makes? By huge difference i mean, if a specific attributes remap makes you win 2mth or 3 in the same year training then yes attributes are important but if it's a week or two it's just ridiculous, adds nothing interesting to the game and specially not int he most important part named "CHOICES"= which skills to train first so you can move on faster. removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Adunh Slavy 1116	Posted - 2013.07.10 15:20:00 - [17] - Quote It would the self imposed PVP barrier some players place upon them selves, with heads full of +5 implants. Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.-á-á- William Pitt
hmskrecik TransMine Group German Information Network Alliance 89	Posted - 2013.07.10 15:20:00 - [18] - Quote RoAnnon wrote: hmskrecik wrote: Skills themselves make difference. Attributes don't. Not sure I understand your point. Two points. One. I answered your concern that EVE may start looking like other games. The skills system is what makes it different from basically anything else. Attributes on the other hand are like quite the same across the board. Second. My point is that internally attributes don't make much difference in game so why bother? It's unnecessary complexity. Quote: I really have nothing more useful to add to the discussion so I'll leave y'all to it. Love that one. "I don't hear ya, la, la, la...!"
Edward Pierce GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 77	Posted - 2013.07.10 15:41:00 - [19] - Quote Set all attributes so that all skills raise at their current optimized level (2250 sp/hr) and leave implants giving their current benefits so people could invest in learning implants for specific skills. Alternatively, remove clone costs completely and lower the sp/hr so that people can choose to increase their risk by investing in learning implants or go with a free clone. If we keep it so that +3s in both prim/sec attributes for your current skill plan keep your training at 2250 sp/hr, then people would have to invest around 20m in implants every time they die. Either way, this idea that the best use of your training time is achieved by only training from specific type of skills for a whole year is pretty dumb and adds nothing to the gameplay mechanics.
RoAnnon Strategic Acquisitions Group Tactical Research Lab 106	Posted - 2013.07.10 15:48:00 - [20] - Quote hmskrecik wrote: Quote: I really have nothing more useful to add to the discussion so I'll leave y'all to it. Love that one. "I don't hear ya, la, la, la...!" My point being that all the arguments FOR the removal don't move me, I don't see the "problem" even after it's explained in detail because I don't see it as being a problem. I was merely bowing out of the discussion, I thought gracefully, so that those folks that have passionate points to make, and those who may be moved and persuaded by said points might come to an understanding. The main point I gleaned was that in the long run the attribute training time bonuses don't really make a difference, and in the short term they hinder a new pilot's ability to quickly engage in effective PVP. If that's an incorrect assessment, my apologies, but I don't see the issue. I prefer participating in discussions where I can contribute constructively. I cannot do so on this topic. That's all. :) Carry on So, you're a bounty hunter. No, that ain't it at all. Then what are you? I'm a bounty hunter.
seth Hendar I love you miners 108	Posted - 2013.07.10 16:03:00 - [21] - Quote Arya Regnar wrote: -1 to this entire idea. Removing diversity from complex game ruins it. And yes, choices. exactly this: this is meant to be complex, and one who wants an effective training would need to plan accordingly (not talking about implants here, it is another subject imao) the curent system is not deterent to pvp at all, a player can be combat efficient in 2 weeks or so, and i've seen new player hoping in frigs and being part of the big scheme. of course, they had **** DPS, and made some mistakes, BUT they were in the middle of a fight, and appeared on the kills of toons playing for years, in ships that, at that moment, they can only dream of. so this is clearly not an issue pvp-side fo the noobs the whole eve idea is about specialisation, and specialisation requires planning, time and dedication, and the current attributes/ skill system is exactly this, and is the main reason most of the players enjoy this game. we enjoy it because everything has consequences, but also everything is possible. it is hard, complex, unforgiving, but if you plan correctly, show yourself smart / patient, and learn (both in SP and player skills), you can achieve everything you want within eve. eve is one of the last game were pushing a button to receive bacon is not possible, and require that you work for it, that you think well ahead, that you be patient. and i personally hope this will stay the longest possible (even if what CCP does to exploration doesn't make me confident about it) say NO to dumbing eve down!
Adunh Slavy 1116	Posted - 2013.07.10 16:36:00 - [22] - Quote What about something like ... remove attributes and attribute implants. In their place implement learning booster drugs mineable from additional gas cloud types. Booster levels can be similar to what we have now, synth, standard, strong and improved, maybe add a filth level since people are used to five levels of things in Eve. Each level gives a 2% boost in training speed, regardless of what you are training, and these boosters last for 24 hours. The different strengths can be found in various security areas, the lowest in 1.0 through 0.8, then 0.7-0.5, then 0.4 to 0.2 then last 0.1 and below. Only synth can be made in high sec, the others low sec or below. Have enough of these clouds that these products can be widely found, manufactured and used. Put them in anomalies that contain no other resources except this gas. For all existing uninstalled implants, convert them to 365 of the appropriate level of booster. For all installed implants convert them to 730 of the appropriate level and place them in the redeemable items system, so chars can get at them, regardless of them being docked or not. Boosters useable from hangar floor or cargo hold. This would add a few things to Eve with out removing 'complexity'. It would add a new profession and increase demand for some existing ones, encourage specialization and reduce barriers to PVP. Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.-á-á- William Pitt
Aliventi Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 173	Posted - 2013.07.10 18:51:00 - [23] - Quote Remove them. Do it yesterday. In fact, time travel back and never implement them in the first place. I know you all are crying about choices and consequences. I agree that attributes have consequences for the choices you make. But in this case I would say the choices and consequences really are not beneficial to Eve. It is like clone cost: A relic of times past that really needs to go away because it doesn't add anything meaningful to the game. The consequences are.. You are slower at training. That IMO is not a very meaningful consequence. Meaningful consequences are bad business choices and now you are bankrupt. You attacked the wrong guy and now his gang is killing you. You forgot that hardener and now your mission boat is dying to rats. Those are meaningful consequences for choices. You want to train a skill off what you are mapped for so it will take longer to train is not very meaningful. Imagine a system where you get a flat 2250 SP/hr. It accrues in a similar way to Dust: it is dumped in to a massive SP pool. When you want a skill you select the skill and use up some of your pooled SP to get it. It is very easy for anyone to understand. It is so simple it would be crazy hard to screw up or make confusing. The added benefit is you can get rid of training queues. No more logging in to get that skill chanced. No more freaking out about being somewhere you can't log in to Eve because you need to chance skills. Oh noes! The sever is being DDoSed and I can't change my skill! That won't be an issue anymore. Now off course you may want to put a cap on the pool of say 5 or so mil SP. Imagine people selling characters that have a 50 mil SP pool. Cool for customization. But kind of detrimental to those who have spent SP and want to sell their toons. I will leave CCP to decide if this is needed and if so how much. As far as learning implants go... Get rid of them. So many people are stuck in highsec where they have +5 learning implants just waiting for skills to be trained instead of having fun. This toon I am posting this on is doing exactly that right now. The only other solution is to have an "implant" that isn't destroyed when you are podded which removes a lot of the consequences. Cool idea. But there isn't a downside like there is right now. If you can find a downside that is meaningful, but doesn't make people choose safety in highsec over doing things then go for it. Until then I vote for a full removal. "tbh most people don't care about removing local from highsec. They want it gone from nullsec. I want to be able to solo roam hunt without everyone knowing I am there without them actually seeing me jump through the gate. Effortless intel is bad." ~Me
Morgan North The Wild Bunch The Empty Mirror 131	Posted - 2013.07.10 18:55:00 - [24] - Quote Atributes are the only thing that keeps me subbed
hmskrecik TransMine Group German Information Network Alliance 89	Posted - 2013.07.10 18:56:00 - [25] - Quote RoAnnon wrote: My point being that all the arguments FOR the removal don't move me, I don't see the "problem" even after it's explained in detail because I don't see it as being a problem. Fair enough. Misunderstanding was on my side. And to some extent I agree. As I stated in #2, attributes don't change game much. If they were removed, which I think they should (or rather, they shouldn't have been added), there wouldn't be much difference, which is argument both for and against removal: For, because it's game mechanics which adds complexity but doesn't add many strategic options. Against, because since removal would have negligible effect and devs' effort could be rather great. So it's better they spend their time doing something really useful or fixing something really broken. seth Hendar wrote: this is meant to be complex, and one who wants an effective training would need to plan accordingly (not talking about implants here, it is another subject imao) the curent system is not deterent to pvp at all, a player can be combat efficient in 2 weeks or so, and i've seen new player hoping in frigs and being part of the big scheme. This is because of how skills work, not because of how attributes work. Quote: the whole eve idea is about specialisation, and specialisation requires planning, time and dedication, and the current attributes/ skill system is exactly this, and is the main reason most of the players enjoy this game. Again, it's because of skills. Attributes have little to say about it. Quote: it is hard, complex, unforgiving, but if you plan correctly, show yourself smart / patient, and learn (both in SP and player skills), you can achieve everything you want within eve. eve is one of the last game were pushing a button to receive bacon is not possible, and require that you work for it, that you think well ahead, that you be patient. Yep, skills again. But you are free to present scenario when someone through careful and masterful attribute planning and management got much better results than someone else who left his attributes at default values. Quote: say NO to dumbing eve down! Welcome to the elite club of people confusing dumbing down with making things simpler.
Silent Rambo Legion of Seven 16	Posted - 2013.07.10 19:11:00 - [26] - Quote hmskrecik wrote: Quote: say NO to dumbing eve down! Welcome to the elite club of people confusing dumbing down with making things simpler. This seems to be a majority. People seem to not understand the difference between making things not suck, and making them easy. Attributes really don't bring much to the game when they apply to skills. You are defined by your skills, not your attributes at this point. Attribute implants discourage PvP, they bring no real benefit to the gameplay as a whole. Its just stupid crap you have to deal with in order to maximize SP accrual, which you acquire without actually playing the game. You could recycle the idea of attributes though, by separating them from effecting SP accrual, and giving a pilot very very slight bonuses to certain things (+1% weapon damage for every 10 perception, +1% sheild/armor per 10 willpower) or something like that. There are other things that attributes would be better suited for.
Freighdee Katt Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 268	Posted - 2013.07.10 20:39:00 - [27] - Quote Silent Rambo wrote: People seem to not understand the difference between making things not suck, and making them easy. EvE is supposed to suck. Wait . . . what was the question?
Freighdee Katt Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 268	Posted - 2013.07.10 20:41:00 - [28] - Quote Adunh Slavy wrote: What about something like ... remove attributes and attribute implants. In their place implement learning booster drugs mineable from additional gas cloud types. Booster levels can be similar to what we have now, synth, standard, strong and improved, maybe add a filth level since people are used to five levels of things in Eve. Each level gives a 2% boost in training speed, regardless of what you are training, and these boosters last for 24 hours. Sean Decker called. He wants his 30-day 25% SP Boost back. (Available now for the low low price of just two PLEX or $20!)
Ronny Hugo Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Inc. 4	Posted - 2013.07.10 21:00:00 - [29] - Quote I support a rework of the skill-system all-together, the tree-shape of the skills make everyone carbon copies of each other and it is a feature all MMORPG's have to my knowledge. There's probably some obscure ones that have something else, but usually its a skill-tree. And usually you don't have to train just one branch because it would probably ruin the game if you had to forever commit to one branch of skills. To first define what is better so we can make "better" happen: I define what makes a game good as "endless variation where player-input is necessary to win". You know, like when you play tennis, you hit a curve-ball and the opponent can counter your curve-ball if he/she stays cool and concentrated, you then manage to counter the opponents different delivery if you stayed cool and concentrated, and is quick about it, and so it goes until one outperforms the other. Right now its like two ball-machines being rolled out on the tennis-court, and each opponent just turns his on and hope it scores points faster than the enemy (by just flying over the net and hitting the court before going off the court). One could argue that this is quite exciting, and it is, but there's potential for more.
Silent Rambo Legion of Seven 16	Posted - 2013.07.10 21:18:00 - [30] - Quote Freighdee Katt wrote: Silent Rambo wrote: People seem to not understand the difference between making things not suck, and making them easy. EvE is supposed to suck. Wait . . . what was the question? Some people think it is supposed to. And it is supposed to suck in certain ways (When other people with common interests get involved, its supposed to suck for you. If there were no players in this game, there would basically be nothing threatening). Your user interface isn't supposed to suck. There shouldn't be "features" which exist to **** you out of SP. The game itself shouldn't be out to ramjet you in the a-hole. That's everyone else's job who lives in the game with you. That's the sandbox.

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.