EVE Search - Discussion: What Missiles should Stealth Bomber use?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Discussion: What Missiles should Stealth Bomber use?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tac Ginaz Gallente Coalition of Nations	Posted - 2008.11.21 17:55:00 - [1] Edited by: Tac Ginaz on 21/11/2008 17:56:20 Opening thread to discuss the pro's and con's of the 'what if...' bombers were allowed to use other missile types. This is not a thread to whine about the missile nerf nor to give your opinion on what others post would be the pro's and con's (Murina take note). Please do not enter into 'we should have covops' or 'we should have this and that' topics, this is purely a MISSILE TYPE discussion. For this discussion, assume CCP gives the bomber 4 launcher slots (makes it easier on the numbers) and gives each missile type a damage/expl. radius bonus equivalent to that which the bomber has now. We will go down the list: Rockets Lights Assault Heavy Heavy Assault Cruise Friend or Foe Siege Citadel Bombs -----------------------------------------------------------
Viktrus Caldari Omega Engineering Inc.	Posted - 2008.11.21 18:12:00 - [2] I'd like to see something like a real stealth bomber. 1 boom.. but a very big boom. maybe citadel, however it would have to shoot maybe 1 but with reduced explosion velocity and increased the missile velocity by a lot. I've always imagined (more like wanted) a stealth bomber to be sort of a glass cannon.
Tac Ginaz Gallente Coalition of Nations	Posted - 2008.11.21 18:13:00 - [3] Rockets: Rockets would work in the bomber only if CCP gave them a rather big damage bonus. Pro's: Rapid refire rate Con's: Short range Lights: Light guided missiles would be a bad choice for the bomber in my opinion. Bomber is not supposed to be an anti-frigate weapon. Pro's : Effective against frigates and cruisers Con's : Limited range, not effective vs Battlecruisers or bigger. Assaults: Same as Lights, only shorter range with slightly better damage. Heavy missiles: The heavy missile is now a rather good choice for the bomber. It is effective vs cruisers and battlecruisers and thanks to its explosion velocity and radius, with the bonuses, it would perhaps be more effective vs a battleship than a cruise missile. Pro's: Excellent explosion velocity and radius, good damage, good range. Faster refire rate. Con's: Lower alpha than cruises, shorter range than cruises. Heavy Assaults: An interesting option as well. Heavy assaults could be another option if it wasn't for the short range. Pro's: Same pros as heavy missiles except for the range. Excellent refire rate. Con's: Short range (perhaps not an issue due to the cloak?) Friend or Foe (Light, Heavy and Cruise): My personal favourite. FOF missiles have the potential to be the bomber's primary weapon. Not requiring a lock, these missiles shorten a bomber's uncloaked time by about 3 seconds on average. Range is decent for their respective missile types, damage is a bit lower however no lock time can be a golden asset. While FOF does require a target to be 'tagged' , there are several ways of working around that little problem. Would be wonderful if the bomb launcher could fire FOF ammo or a special launcher for the bomber is developed that lets it fire all FOF missile types. Pro's : No lock time. Good range. Decent Damage. One skill covers all FOF missile types. Con's : Lower damage, no T2 variants, requires 'tagged' target to home in to. Siege Torpedoes: CCP has mentioned theyve meddled with giving the bomber siege torpedoes. Perhaps it will be a good thing. The heavy punch these torps can give out (with bomber bonus) could be the long-awaited sucker-punch alpha damage ability every bomber pilot dreams of. On the other hand, it could also be a great disappointment if not done correctly.. we could end up with slightly better damage than cruises now but with much short range. Pro: Higher damage, more effective vs large targets Con: Shorter range Citadel Torpedoes: An alternative option to the Siege torps. Citadels would make the bomber a large-ship attacker and innefective vs smaller ships unless said ships are painted and webbed. Delivering massive damage at an albeit snail's crawl and with tremendous range (148km), the citadel could be an option if the bomber is given properly balanced bonuses to use it. Pro: very high damage, very long range, best missile graphics in game ( ;) ) Con: Slow speed on torps, useless vs cruiser&frigates, slow refire rate. ------------------------------------------------- Re-Design Stealth Bomber Weapons!
Dirk Magnum Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2008.11.21 18:43:00 - [4] Remember how big capital weapons are. Massive, massive things. Rules them out for making any sense whatsoever on a Frigate. Just further boost the current Bomber bonuses and be done with it. Make them as effective today as they were before the missile changes. If you add a new bonus, give them a special high slot module that notionally aids in missile guidance, allowing each missile to hit the weakest part of the ship being attacked. This module's effective purpose would be to scale damage upwards as the missiles hit bigger and bigger targets. This bonus would be on top of the ships own missile accuracy bonus if the guidance module was equipped. Stealth Bombers are very niche. Make them tank well, or make them one-shot things that are harder than light frigates and you'll be getting a Bomber FOTM which will inevitably result in the ships being nerfed again.
el caido	Posted - 2008.11.21 18:46:00 - [5] Originally by: Tac Ginaz Assaults: Same as Lights, only shorter range with slightly better damage. That hurt my head. And for the sake of adding a constructive comment, I don't see the problem with cruise missiles. These ships still fill their niche despite popular opinion. However, if CCP decides to give my beloved bombers a buff, I won't object. :)
TimMc Gallente Brutal Deliverance	Posted - 2008.11.21 18:54:00 - [6] Edited by: TimMc on 21/11/2008 18:54:21 Torps would be cool, but very dangerous. Lots of damage bonuses, we could see people decloaking a half dozen stealth bombers infront of a battleship to try and pop it quickly. Citadel Torps would be weird, and unlikely useful. Still the appeal of sending bomber wings against a carrier thats been bubbled does sound fun. EDIT: But then the effect is huge from such a small ship.
Imaos	Posted - 2008.11.21 19:36:00 - [7] Originally by: TimMc Edited by: TimMc on 21/11/2008 18:54:21 Torps would be cool, but very dangerous. Lots of damage bonuses, we could see people decloaking a half dozen stealth bombers infront of a battleship to try and pop it quickly. Torps aren't that much different than cruises in that respect. It's also the wish of many people to just do that (with a cov ops cloak) to guarantee instant death. Imaos ------------------------------------------ Originally by: NoNah My friend, this is EVE, as it's a space oriented game, they couldn't have trolls. We have Caldari.
Imaos	Posted - 2008.11.21 19:41:00 - [8] Originally by: Tac Ginaz Pro's : No lock time. Good range. Decent Damage. One skill covers all FOF missile types. Con's : Lower damage, no T2 variants, requires 'tagged' target to home in to. 1) One EXTRA skill covers all F.o.F. missiles. Standard missiles, heavy missiles and cruise missile skills also apply to them. 2) Lower damage is mostly mitigated with the F.o.F. skill. Imaos ------------------------------------------ Originally by: NoNah My friend, this is EVE, as it's a space oriented game, they couldn't have trolls. We have Caldari.
Suitonia Gallente interimo	Posted - 2008.11.21 20:32:00 - [9] Citadel torps arn't really a good idea in my opinion. First you've got to factor in the cost for the modules. at 35mil ~ each on average; you are spending 100mil just to fit weapons on the Frigate. Secondly having a capital weapon which requires quite a significant investment in skillpoints to be able to fit onto a Frigate doesn't really work. The 'huge damage' that Citadel torps do isn't actually 'huge' at all. You'd need to be in siege mode to do any decent dps with them, much like a real dread. Or you can shoot less than 400 dps with 3 launchers and 2 BCU's + a 25% damage bonus and do even less damage than the current cruise missle Bomber due to explosion velocity, velocity, and explosion radius. Besides, are you going to attack another dread with it? Get oneshotted by his support, or even his guns due to you being stuck still. Siege a POS with it? get oneshotted by POS guns.
Dyaven The Tuskers	Posted - 2008.11.21 20:38:00 - [10] Make a special stealth bomber Citadel Torpedo launcher that only loads 2 or 3 missiles and fires them at a very low RoF with big damage bonus. ===== * Your signature file is broken. Please use an image that will display - Fallout
Tac Ginaz Gallente Coalition of Nations	Posted - 2008.11.22 05:24:00 - [11] Ive asked for that dyven. Citadel could provide the punch , the range for both point blank and long range fire (with citadels I see no reason why CCP would not remove the cloak = missiles dissapear block as anyone getting hit by a citadel fired from 140km that crawled at low speed to reach him does deserve to get hit) as well as turn the bomber into alpha damage dealer not dps (which it would if it used siege torps!). As for the launcher.. well, a bomber-only launcher could be added to the game. loads just 2 torps worth of ammo and the bomber would get cpu/gpu reduction to be able to load it and whatever damage/sig reduction/explosion velocity/radius is needed to make the citadel hit a single BS hard but not a killing blow. For myself, im rather happy I read CCP looked into the bomber and was thinking of siege torps.. at least it shows they dedicated a few minutes to consider the bomber and its issues. We've been waiting for this kind of attention for years. ------------------------------------------------- Re-Design Stealth Bomber Weapons!
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.11.22 05:43:00 - [12] We will go down the list: Originally by: Tac Ginaz Rockets Useless. Rockets, and every ship that uses them, suck. Quote: Lights Would require a massive damage bonus to be true "bombers", and would make them too effective against smaller ships, cutting into the role of existing frigates. Quote: Assault Are light missiles. Quote: Heavy Would require a large damage bonus to be true "bombers", but otherwise not bad. Quote: Heavy Assault No advantage over heavy missiles, since they would need a huge damage bonus anyway. Quote: Cruise Were working decently until missiles overall were nerfed, but underwhelming in the anti-big-stuff role. Quote: Friend or Foe Terrible. To attack a target, you would first have to take damage from it, and once you've taken damage, you're dead. Quote: Siege Terrible. Not only do they have pathetic range, but torps would put them solidly in the anti-battleship role, but without the damage to actually hurt a battleship without a huge numbers advantage (think 10:1 or more). Quote: Citadel See above, but the drawbacks get massively worse, without any matching increase in damage. Quote: Bombs Finally you have something. How to solve bombers, in three easy steps: 1) Reduce bomb cost to approximately the cost of an interdictor bubble. 2) Change the bomb launcher to fire a single bomb, or 5x cruise missiles with extremely fast ROF, with the current "once per fight" reload time. Remove the fitting reduction for cruise launchers, and instead allow them to fit 3x of the new launcher. 3) Add the covert ops cloak. Problem solved. ----------- Blaster sig removed for now, pending those "changes we've been working on all day". CCP, don't screw this up.
Herring Caldari Metalworks THE INTERSTELLAR FOUNDRY	Posted - 2008.11.22 11:34:00 - [13] Originally by: Tac Ginaz Friend or Foe (Light, Heavy and Cruise): My personal favourite. FOF missiles have the potential to be the bomber's primary weapon. Not requiring a lock, these missiles shorten a bomber's uncloaked time by about 3 seconds on average. Range is decent for their respective missile types, damage is a bit lower however no lock time can be a golden asset. While FOF does require a target to be 'tagged' , there are several ways of working around that little problem. Would be wonderful if the bomb launcher could fire FOF ammo or a special launcher for the bomber is developed that lets it fire all FOF missile types. Pro's : No lock time. Good range. Decent Damage. One skill covers all FOF missile types. Con's : Lower damage, no T2 variants, requires 'tagged' target to home in to. This sounds good to me except for the 80km invisible cap that fof's have now. Unless you're wanting more of a midrange type weapons platform. And tagging sounds somewhat tricky.
Doctor Mabuse	Posted - 2008.11.23 01:44:00 - [14] Allow them to use Lock-breaker and Void bombs in lo-sec. Keep damage type bombs to 0.0 Might help with the FW blobs as well... ------------------------------------ Who's trip-trapping on my bridge?
William Caldon Caldari Amarr Sisterhood of Galactic Sirens	Posted - 2008.11.23 02:07:00 - [15] Once again Merlin-failer person posts his fake-wisdom. Stealth bombers are effective at their role. Put a target painter or get better Cruise Missile skills and quit failing. /thread
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.11.23 02:58:00 - [16] Originally by: William Caldon Once again Merlin-failer person posts his fake-wisdom. Stealth bombers are effective at their role. Put a target painter or get better Cruise Missile skills and quit failing. /thread So a target painter gives bombers the ability to warp while cloaked? Amazing what undocumented features CCP has put in this game, I shall have to go try it immediately. ----------- Blaster sig removed for now, pending those "changes we've been working on all day". CCP, don't screw this up.
William Caldon Caldari Amarr Sisterhood of Galactic Sirens	Posted - 2008.11.23 07:51:00 - [17] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Originally by: William Caldon Once again Merlin-failer person posts his fake-wisdom. Stealth bombers are effective at their role. Put a target painter or get better Cruise Missile skills and quit failing. /thread So a target painter gives bombers the ability to warp while cloaked? Amazing what undocumented features CCP has put in this game, I shall have to go try it immediately. What the heck are you talking about? I'm talking about missiles and you go off and talk about warp while cloaking? No wonder you don't understand Covert Ships. You fail at reading.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.11.23 08:22:00 - [18] Originally by: William Caldon What the heck are you talking about? I'm talking about missiles and you go off and talk about warp while cloaking? No wonder you don't understand Covert Ships. You fail at reading. I am talking about your stupid "get a target painter" comment. If you had actually read my post instead of just trying to score some points by joining the anti-Merin bandwagon, you would have noticed that I very clearly said that cruise missiles are NOT the problem with bombers. For the clueless in the audience, this means that fitting a painter or training missile skills will NOT fix the ship as you seem to think. ----------- Blaster sig removed for now, pending those "changes we've been working on all day". CCP, don't screw this up.
Max Hardcase Art of War Exalted.	Posted - 2008.11.23 12:52:00 - [19] Edited by: Max Hardcase on 23/11/2008 12:53:36 Edited by: Max Hardcase on 23/11/2008 12:52:21 Mini bombs on a 5m^3 missile. CCP took the bomber aspect of the Stealthbomber too serious. Even Tie bombers used very heavy missiles for the most part.
RedSplat Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.11.23 13:00:00 - [20] Edited by: RedSplat on 23/11/2008 13:02:37 Should they even use missiles? They can use bombs and thus fulfil that particular aspect of their role. Give stealth bombers the ability to mount a large turret and give them a 300% damage bonus (maybe greater) with it and an optimal range bonus. SB's then get more survivability as they don't have to wait for missiles to hit, they get instant damage. Tracking problems? Thats what TC's and TE's are for- besides, who isn't going to engage anything small at a range that makes tracking rather irrelevant. EDIT: Merin how does large turret dmg scale against small targets if you hit? I don't want to set the world on fire
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.11.23 13:14:00 - [21] Originally by: Merin Ryskin I am talking about your stupid "get a target painter" comment. If you had actually read my post instead of just trying to score some points by joining the anti-Merin bandwagon, you would have noticed that I very clearly said that cruise missiles are NOT the problem with bombers. For the clueless in the audience, this means that fitting a painter or training missile skills will NOT fix the ship as you seem to think. This here. Read it. Putting a turret on bombers does give them instant damage. The thing is that they shouldn't have, or need, instant damage, because of their range, accuracy and damage potential. Not to mention that a battleship turret on a frigate would be a very, very messy concept, even if you generally think the fluff of the game a distant and messy thing. If people really took the time to look up what a stealth bomber is in real life, and then what cruise missiles are, how much they weigh and how they behave, and how the two don't actually go together until you apply a few new ideas to the concept... Then again, I will say that people just wanting their old well-performing SB:s back would be wholly satisfactory as well. Or the old damage potential of missiles in general. Cripes, we now see a huge damage reduction on Cruises even against Battleships. And people in general think there is no problem with this? What, does everyone really fly Amarr only?
RedSplat Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.11.23 13:20:00 - [22] Originally by: Aleus Stygian a battleship turret on a frigate would be a very, very messy concept, even if you generally think the fluff of the game a distant and messy thing. Large turrets are still smaller than the citadel torps some have suggested Why is building a ship around a weapons system a bad thing? I refer you to the Elephant tank of ww2, Anti tank weapons in general and self propelled artillery (all of which use outsized weaponry for thier armoured weight class) and the A10 'Tankbuster'; the design ethic for which was 'lets take a huge automatic cannon and build a plane around it'. Originally by: Aleus Stygian If people really took the time to look up what a stealth bomber is in real life, Eve Online /=/ Real life now? Fine so maybe people want thier old cruise SB's back. Things have changed: besides 'because that's what i used to be able to do' what valid reason do SB's have to use cruises NOW given alternatives? Methinks some people just dont want the weapons system changed as they have trained cruises. I don't want to set the world on fire
Fenren Minmatar Bure Astro Photography	Posted - 2008.11.23 15:15:00 - [23] before deciding about which type of missile should be used, we must know what kind of dps and volley damage it should do and against what target. today they do about 200-250 dps iirc and works well against all targets (or are they ** against friggs since the patch?) they have a really high alpha considering their size and a low rof they can cloak and target right after decloak but lack the ability to fit cov-ops cloak. a ot of people seem to dislike the fact that a niche-ship is so limited and want it to be better in all its low areas. that is a great way to make a FOTM. a niche-ship should be limited, but it can be too limited. what is the ship supposed to do?** is it a solo ship ment to harrass smaller ships and industrials? then it might need a boost to alpha but lower dps is it meant to be used in smaller stealthy and mobile gangs? then it might need a cov ops cloak to be able to warp in cloaked on targets. is it meant to be a suprise support craft? then it might need a little bit of tanking ability and rebalance its bonuses so they can kill small ships again (if that got fubared in the patch) but if more than one of these (or more than one other boost) gets implemented it is likely to get too good. it is a niche-ship and hopefully it stays that way. the type of launcher(s) it uses is only a cosmetic issue. the biggest issue is its role and how well it performs it
Adaera	Posted - 2008.11.23 15:51:00 - [24] Anyone who says "just fit a target painter" is a clueless idiot who's evidently never flown a bomber. Bomber cruise missiles are fine on sig radius; there's very little that can get under the blast radius of mine - but they have an explosion velocity of something like 65m/s. When I was testing with a friend; when he was stationary they hit fine. Moving at 295m/s (in an ibis) the damage went down to 137 per missile; and at a rifters base speed, and then with an afterburner on; well it's not even worth mentioning.
Fenren Minmatar Bure Astro Photography	Posted - 2008.11.23 16:26:00 - [25] Edited by: Fenren on 23/11/2008 16:31:20 give it a cov ops cloak and i think it will be a really valid ship. but will cov-ops still be really valid? (i think they will still be valid) what is most important on the cov ops, its cloak or the scan bonus? then the SB will be a long range dps-ship for stealth gangs. althou they might not be as good against smaller targets as before they will have gained a big amount of offensive capabilities. Originally by: RedSplat Why is building a ship around a weapons system a bad thing?... Methinks some people just dont want the weapons system changed as they have trained cruises. the thing is if they used guns, they would be too good against smaller things, they would be the be all end all of small ship combat. any frig that is within range will have no chance to escape. it locks fast and far and if it has instant damage and enough alpha to be a valid ship it will pop every frigg with no time for the target to react. it would have to lose its lock-after-decloak bonus then.
Mire Stoude Cash Money Brothers	Posted - 2008.11.23 16:49:00 - [26] They actually get the best dps with 3 standard launchers and 2 guns.
Lucian Warchild	Posted - 2008.11.23 16:55:00 - [27] I'm all for the Torpedo approach. Same damage bonuses so the bombers torps do more damage. This would give them more success against larger targets and become a real threat instead of a mild nuisance. Closer Range so the bombers are actually forced into engaging where they can be locked down instead of launching from 140km away and having ample time to escape if things go bad. Same bonus to Explosion Radius (or maybe changed to 10% instead of 16.66%) so the bombers still do acceptable damage to smaller stuff without being the supreme frigate killer. Bombers would have to navigate into range in order to unleash the devastating power of the Torpedo and be close enough that they are in actual danger. Risk, Reward.
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.11.23 16:57:00 - [28] Edited by: Aleus Stygian on 23/11/2008 16:57:09 Originally by: RedSplat Originally by: Aleus Stygian If people really took the time to look up what a stealth bomber is in real life, Eve Online /=/ Real life now? Fine so maybe people want thier old cruise SB's back. Things have changed: besides 'because that's what i used to be able to do' what valid reason do SB's have to use cruises NOW given alternatives? Methinks some people just dont want the weapons system changed as they have trained cruises. You're saying pretty much what I meant there at the start, only you seem to have misinterpreted. Think about it for a bit. Otherwise? Well, SBs used to be able to fill their role of mobile fire support that sacrifices survivability for damage and range rather well, but not too well. They had significant weaknesses, but could do some nasty things when ganged up or tag-teamed with other ships. However they were no real threat to anything bigger than a Cruiser, and indeed not even to many Cruisers either, because of their limited DPS and their vulnerabilities. They depended on volley damage. Taking on a Battleship or a Battlecruiser, even in a gang fight, was thus pretty much asking to have your ass handed to you. So the Stealth Bomber was thus restricted pretty much to solely an anti-frigate, anti-support role, or to two-man-ganging with a fast, high-survivability tackler. Now, what has changed in this formula? Well, now that cruise missiles have passed even rockets in crappiness, when even Battleships can significantly reduce the damage received from cruise missiles by simply applying an afterburner, cruisers all have enough speed and tank to easily outlast even an extended barrage, and frigates just laugh at the few scant points of damage as they close in, the Stealth Bomber has lost the targets that it used to have, while gaining no new ones. Now, the Stealth Bomber can be pretty much summed up as thus; almost half of a Raven's guns, with some slight stealth and mobility and damage improvements, with the lasting power of a card house.
Fenren Minmatar Bure Astro Photography	Posted - 2008.11.23 17:47:00 - [29] Originally by: Aleus Stygian You're saying pretty much what I meant there at the start, only you seem to have misinterpreted. Think about it for a bit. Otherwise? Well, SBs used to be able to fill their role of mobile fire support that sacrifices survivability for damage and range rather well, but not too well. They had significant weaknesses, but could do some nasty things when ganged up or tag-teamed with other ships. However they were no real threat to anything bigger than a Cruiser, and indeed not even to many Cruisers either, because of their limited DPS and their vulnerabilities. They depended on volley damage. Taking on a Battleship or a Battlecruiser, even in a gang fight, was thus pretty much asking to have your ass handed to you. So the Stealth Bomber was thus restricted pretty much to solely an anti-frigate, anti-support role, or to two-man-ganging with a fast, high-survivability tackler. Now, what has changed in this formula? Well, now that cruise missiles have passed even rockets in crappiness, when even Battleships can significantly reduce the damage received from cruise missiles by simply applying an afterburner, cruisers all have enough speed and tank to easily outlast even an extended barrage, and frigates just laugh at the few scant points of damage as they close in, the Stealth Bomber has lost the targets that it used to have, while gaining no new ones. Now, the Stealth Bomber can be pretty much summed up as thus; almost half of a Raven's guns, with some slight stealth and mobility and damage improvements, with the lasting power of a card house. so give it a cov ops and it moves from anti support to dps ship in stealth gangs a cov ops cloak gives it a lot of offensive capabilities and because the missile change it moves away from solo ganking small targets to ranged dps support
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2008.11.23 17:51:00 - [30] Originally by: Merin Ryskin 2) Change the bomb launcher to fire a single bomb, or 5x cruise missiles with extremely fast ROF, with the current "once per fight" reload time. Remove the fitting reduction for cruise launchers, and instead allow them to fit 3x of the new launcher. How fast? 5 sec? 3 sec? 0 sec? I like the idea though. __________________________________ Originally by: Arthur Frayn How much to ruin all your holes, luv?

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.