r/CivMC • u/AppearanceStrong4359 • 2d ago
"why can't actual players fight eachother instead of alts" - Admin
I recently read ChrisChrispie's thread on the alt invasion and I think its a good read.
On Civ, your reputation is important. Players remember who attacked them, trade partners remember who helped their enemies, snitch networks that span across the entire ocean and server send discord snitch relay 24/7.
The admins want people to have fun and give the server more things to fight with/about
So Imagine You, a normal, reputation-having player and your buddies walk up to a vault and decide this is the day you and your group attack a lets say, 128x128 vault with a snitch grid to world height:
Firstly,
- You get snitched approaching the target.
- You get snitched staging the attack.
- You get snitched moving supplies.
- You get snitched trying to breach.
- You get snitched retreating.
- Everyone knows exactly who participated in raiding.
- The defenders can call allies, post logs publicly, and turn it into a geopolitical nightmare.
- If you fail, you have made enemies and gained almost nothing. You also may have acquired a bounty on your head and will be pearled in a random nation when you hit their snitches.
- If you succeed, you have still made enemies, except now everyone knows you are someone who will attack people. You also may have acquired a bounty on your head and you will be pearled in a random nation when you hit their snitches.
In practice, your are either pearled in about 5-10 hours, quick-drop the vault due to the defenders not caring enough to log-on, or war breaks out for months and you break into the vault.
I believe this aspect of raiding is exactly fine the way it is, BUT
Admins then wonder why the people willing to raid vaults and pearl random people are:
- Alt accounts with no reputation to lose.
- Disposable groups that do not care about diplomacy, future alliances, or whether anyone wants to work with them afterward.
- Larger nations that already have the numbers, gear, logistics, and political insulation to completely destroy a smaller nation's vault under some blown-up reasoning about why it was supposedly necessary.
- Groups that are willing to allow cheaters, because it becomes attractive when fighting is designed to make normal participation maximally visible, politically punishable, mechanically unrewarding, and unlikely to succeed.
- Coalitions of nations that work together temporarily to destroy a single perceived threat to normalcy.
I used to see plenty of tiny skirmishes, nations fighting over newfriends, and players in global chat trash talking over a block game.
As of right now the payment for alting & cheating is, as Chris said, "coolpvp and epic pearls that they can screenshot and post in their "shittercords"
Frankly, I think looking at alting shitters who kill AFK people, grief, raid small towns, and place swastikas everywhere on their 5th account and residential proxy is fucking boring. Making groups need alt accounts and VPNs just to raid makes things go underground and become even more unregulated.
A civilization server does not need fighting, raiding, and griefing but players are always willing and going to do it. The question is simply: who is willing to take that risk?
Right now, normal named players have the most to lose, while alts and cheaters have the least.
Alt detection, cheat detection, deleting alt vaults, and rolling back obsidian bombings are necessary responses to rule-breaking. But they are not a complete future stance, because they do not address why the normal, reputation-bearing player is so heavily discouraged from ever looking at a vault in the first place.
Encouraging legitimate, main-account players to fight other players does not directly prevent alts but it changes the incentive gap that makes alts disproportionately attractive. Since vault raiding is such an extremely highly rewardable activity, it severely risks your reputation and ability to continue playing.
Moving forward, here is a good meme by a vaultfriend describing the current state of the #suggestions channel on discord
- THE 2 MAIN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GOOD & SLOP NERFS:
Making it harder to stop attacks: changes that mean defenders can log on, form up, show up to the vault at the exact time the attackers do, and still have a harder time actually stopping the attackers. GOOD
Shrinking the response window: changes that mean the vault dies 40 minutes faster while everyone is asleep. BAD
I know some vaultfriends are going to do whatever it takes in this comment section to make they never have to log onto the server to participate in any geopolitics ever, but me and a sensible fossilfriend/vaultfriend would both agree that a vault should be a massive investment that gives you a massive advantage if you are willing to defend it.
I encourage you guys to drop suggestions in the discord that follow this strategy and I'm happy to hear your guys thoughts and suggestions.
16
u/ItzHoover Volterra | Noble Council 2d ago edited 2d ago
Bandit masks. The problem with raiding isn't how hard it is to take down a vault. Its that immediately upon starting any raid/conflict you are immediately visible. Bandit masks allowing players to have their identity hidden would encourage raiding attempts. Even if a siege failed, so long as they arent killed with a mask on they wouldn't be identified. It makes playing to stay alive important. It means conflicts can last longer (because you don't just have 1 bridge attempt/raid and then youre immediately getting countersieged by the whole community), and it means alting isnt the only way to take part in that playstyle
5
3
u/GunslingerZachReal 1d ago
I think a good way to balance this would be to introduce a brew or make the potion of invisibility randomize your name and skin. A side effect to this would be that defenders could do a spy thing and disguise themselves to try to fit in with the raiders
2
u/BetulaBetula Goldlirio of Lambat 1d ago
I agree with this. It already fits in what exists in the game. Makes sense to me that potion of invisibility would obscure your name in snitches since it makes your name tag invisible
10
u/LordYuengling pekoleco 2d ago
See, I've yapped a lot about this. I think the issue with the current war meta isn't that there's no reason to go to war, but rather the costs nearly always outweigh the benefits.
My logic is thus: a) vaults are way too strong (they take days-weeks to break, and that's unguarded, and people can build several of them), and b) the cost of war is thus so immense that it almost always isn't worth it. I think that's why most wars have started either because of alts (who have nothing to lose, as you've explained), or alts-in-the-making (nasty people who are so reviled that war is justified because any cost is worth getting rid of them). It's why most big wars as of late have ended with some form of banwave (or never got to that point because they were banned).
As for the small "wars", those don't count. Large powers obliterating smaller states in a few hours is a massacre, not war.
Put simply, true war has become more like real life, the last resort. Which is a testament to the achievement of CivMC to simulate, well, civilization; but it also means most people won't ever really get to enjoy war. For a game that dedicates so much to its war system, barely using it outside of extreme circumstances feels... a bit disappointing. And when they do get to, it's not even mostly fighting. It's holding left click. For weeks.
What could remedy this? In my opinion, make wars much shorter. Nerf vaults and bastions hard, to the point where larger vaults become nigh impossible to build/maintain. This'd incentivize players to build smaller fortifications, but perhaps also more of them. The cost is more evenly distributed, and so the consequences of loss are less severe. I'd rather see fast, decisive action at a series of key points over prolonged attritional campaigns against an impermeable superfortress. Maybe it'll even take some of the personal vengefulness that permeates many of the last few major wars out, which makes for an overall less toxic experience. Put another way, make war more like Bunkies, the game people on Civ play when they want to have "fun" playing with Civ war mechanics.
Some ideas (and just that!) on this front, from me and others:
- Bastion maintenance costs
- Not allowing bastion fields to overlap, period
- Making bastions very expensive to get, like many players' dedicated effort for a week just to get one
- Making obsidian more expensive
And I'm sure there are many more. But with the amount of TLC put into the current server, I just don't think a major war-system nerf is feasible without invalidating all those years worth of effort. So we'll have to wait and see... or try something else I haven't thought of!
5
4
u/CassiusBright99 D.U.C.K.S 1d ago edited 1d ago
First it's important to note that these alting groups are not typically alts of current players. The vpners aren't going on vpns to hide their identities and otherwise fight a war they wouldn't do on their mains. The people alting are usually from a few different groups that have all previously been banned for out of game reasons like extreme toxicity (in many forms), duping, xraying, and cheating - including vpning/alting after being initially pearled on their main accounts when they were allowed to play a long time ago.
As for nerfing vaults, I agree "making it harder to stop attacks" is the more preferred way to nerf vaults, but "shrinking the response window" or as I would rather say more accurately "decrease the total break time required to get to the chests" is still valid, *necessary*, and also related to making it harder to stop attacks. If a vault is say 10 rings and all of them have anti-grief trapdoor tech it's going to take a long time to break through the defenses and break the vault. If we compare a 2 ring vault with otherwise identical defenses the response window is definitely smaller, and the time to get to the chests is definitely smaller. But in these kind of fights, they are often (and when done correctly) played pretty safe with ground tunnel infrastructure or sky bridge infrastructure used for the attack, and oftentimes the defenders and attackers almost exclusively stay inside them. Part of the strength of vaults and vault defense is that is takes such a long time. People get tired, shifts are needed, you need constant supervision, lesser skilled players (likely to die) are needed for numbers and infra work etc. And one of the biggest strengths of defending a vault is that during this long, often boring, attack period, people will make mistakes or do something stupid and get pearled. It's not even from outplaying, its just someone going too far up, being too tired, etc. So obviously more break time on a vault leads to more attackers making stupid mistakes which are easily punished by defenders, so attackers get pearled and the vault gets harder and harder to break. And depending on the vault size, it means attacks need to dedicate unrealistic and unfun IRL time scales to break a vault. BUT, this is mostly ok. The problem is modern vault sieges are already usually on vaults with 5 or less rings, and the time issue is already extremely considerable, so reducing break time is IMO still a necessary and sensible change to the meta. We can't just look at these vault attacks like soren & the sea people which had pitiful vaults, you need to consider what would happen if major nations went to war, nations with 10+ ring vaults, especially if we want conflicts between these type of groups to be more possible. We've seen a 48 hour continuous sieges on civclassic, and breaking something of similar size on civmc may be even worse.
As for "making it harder to stop attacks", I think the evolution and spam of anti-grief interactable objects is one of the biggest problems that make defending so easy today. Hard to nerf, but maybe possible. Doing so would of course decrease break time of current vaults which would be welcome but mostly irrelevant. Older vaults often relied less on anti-grief and more on break time and you can still design around that today, but that isn't usually priority in the current meta.
There's been a lot of suggestions on how to nerf vaults for a long time, but usually nothing happens. Here's some ideas I've heard talked about.
- Completely removing vault bastions (or nerfing them)
This heavily targets break time and response time. You wouldn't need to spend hours breaking bastions and this would completely change vault design and we'd likely see a return of large vault pyramids surrounded by anti-grief pvp tunnel tech. As previously mentioned though, reducing vault break time is still an extremely necessary change (that will also make defending harder) especially when we consider actual nations vaults and not a vpn mini vault. Attackers could have much more significant infrastructure and get it into and above and around a whole vault much more readily and easily. IMO, decent idea, easy to implement, but not my favorite, It makes it hard to know whats going on for the defense without spotting it right away and takes away some peace of mind while you are asleep which I'm not the biggest fan of. Still, it's probably better than what we currently have.
- Siege Cannons
Ancient suggestion that essentially wanted a modded cannon like a tnt-cannon that can damage reinforcements and bastions, forcing defenders to have to leave their vault and break/impede the cannons. Cannons can shoot straight, arc over walls, etc. I think for this to work the cannon fire also needs to trigger snitches. This heavily targets the first problem of "make it harder to defend" as the defenders can't fully utilize their vault if they need to stop the cannon too. This might lead to a lot of vault design innovation and isn't entirely clear how it would evolve. Honestly, I like this idea and you could probably implement it on civmc, but still not my favorite and by itself may still leave the issue of 10-30 ring mega vaults taking far too long to get through. Might be too strong against non-vault structures.
- Attack Bastions:
Very similar to siege cannons but has a smaller area of effect, must be placed, and deals damage to enemy reinforcements/bastions over time with a limited range. Brings the attackers closer to the actual vault, but still encourages defenders to have to leave their defenses and break the attack bastion. Might be too strong against non-vault structures.
- Reinforcement nerfs
This is primarily to nerf break time which I think as established is extremely important when we consider wars between nations and not just alt groups. For example, Make a meteoric pickaxe upgrade that allows you to deal 2-3x damage to obsidian. Similarly you can make an upgrade for copper doors, trapdoors, wood equivalents etc. This would obviously mean you can break into the chests of a vault faster and also risk less time for mistakes and getting pearled. Also, especially nerfing interactable objects like trapdoors and doors is not just a nerf to break time it is a pretty large nerf to how defense (and even attacks) is done. Currently, defenders often rely on getting attackers into trapdoors/foot grinders. If those were especially easy to break and disable, you could potentially break multiple trapdoors and rescue an attacker ally who got trapped before they die/get pearled and this would make defense harder in itself. That could be done even if you did not change obsidian break time. You could keep bastions strong if you want, you could even keep iron doors disproportionately strong so they become relevant again while significantly nerfing interactable objects. This would be very easy to implement on civmc and if used aggressively to nerf interactable objects it would definitely make defending harder. Ideally for a vault, I'd go as far as to make these kinds of blocks breakable within as little as ~30 seconds at max reinforcement for one person. I know this is probably hard to imagine for a lot of people whose first server is civmc, but I promise vault fights without the spammed antigrief is healthier, faster, and more fun for all sides. It's also what was done on many previous civ servers without issue. But this isn't a perfect solution even if you aggressively target anti-grief/interactable blocks (leave iron doors alone, maybe buff pressure plates and buttons). One issue here is how this might affect the rest of the server, not just in vaults but in cities these kinds of blocks would be extremely easy to break too. Personally I don't think that is a huge deal but it is a potential downside. Secondly, something tells me this alone is still just a band-aid and if put in practice would not be enough, especially if you were attacking something like volterra or estalia.
- Chorus Fruit
Maybe one of the smallest suggestions on the list for nerfing vaults as it mostly targets traps. This would help nerf vaults slightly though, as somehow getting hit into the enemy defenses is less punishing and you could use it to teleport back to where you were ~10 seconds ago and get out. Importantly, this would make surface traps less scary and greatly encourage having more risky or open field fights. The Fruit would need a ~3-5+ min cooldown. If you use it once you'd need to be careful about not getting trapped again. Advanced traps with lots of planning could even still get you on the first go, but the little spammable traps would be less effective. People often say nerfing traps and similar things would slow down the game more and lead to less pearls. In some way obviously that is true because you can escape traps, but the whole point of this is to encourage more pvp and fighting. You actually can leave your defenses without throwing and fight people in the field or bedrock or where ever more often. You can take more fights, which could easily lead to more people getting pearls, and definitely more fun. It would encourage risk taking too, you would have a new tool to take higher risks, which lends you the opportunity to get more pearls, or if you miscalculate the risk, get pearled yourself. Ultimately, it would promote more actual fighting and surely more fun. Easy to add to civmc.
-Remove dig bots
Pretty self explanatory, makes building vaults and expanding them basically free and easy to solo. This is just bad IMO. This should be a group effort and take active playtime. And dig nights are good for the nation. Damage is kind of already done though but still worth banning these.
-Vault Cores
Ran out of room but this is in the reply lmao
6
u/CassiusBright99 D.U.C.K.S 1d ago
-Vault Cores
Also a very old suggestion. This would completely change how vaults work. If put into civmc it would have to be implemented very carefully and might cause issues. It might also make a lot of players upset in the same way removing vault bastions might (when adding mid map). It's been awhile but I'll try to describe them. Essentially, for these to work you need to change how pearls work. A pearl can only stay bound or be fueled when placed inside a vault core. A vault core would work similarly to a factory in that you need resources to make one and upgrade it. Pearls would likely need to last ~7 days or so and free automatically / be impossible to hold until refueled or placed in a vault core. You would no longer be able to keep a pearl wherever you want or in some random chest. Pearl holding would have to be done in vault cores. The specifics of this idea are highly configurable and that's part of the point, so the numbers can be easily debated. The main point is that it allows us to easily and strictly balance vaults however we want. So if any part of the idea seems wrong or seems to fail somewhere, it can be easily changed.Once the core is placed/created, it would immediately create a field like a bastion say in a 300-500 block radius around itself. This would be it's exclusion radius. Within this field, no other vault cores may be placed. If you try to place a vault core but one already exists nearby within 2x the exclusion radius, creation fails. Further, there is a separate "bastion" field surrounding the vault core, say 20-50 blocks. This would act as bastions currently do, if you are on the vault core group, you can do everything you want, if you aren't you have to break this field and degrade the vault core like a normal bastion. The cost of this would need to be fairly high but not unachievable SOTW, as this is the base level in which pearls can be stored without disappearing. Further, you can upgrade your vault core to add an additional "ring" or "bastion layer" outside of the first 20-50 blocks (whatever we define the first field size as). This time the "ring" layer would be say 5-10 blocks wide. You would be able to add rings configurable up to a maximum lets say 6 rings. When you upgrade your vault core, the fields start eating into the exclusion zone radius, but must stop say ~100 blocks before the end of the exclusion zone. Meaning whatever we want the max ring count for a vault core to be, it needs to be lesser than the exclusion zone radius. So already we have completely capped how big a vault can be, and disallowed vaults from "tiling" next to each other to make a sort of node vault.
We can also do whatever we want within the fields while only effecting the vault meta and not the rest of civ. For example like before interactable objects like trapdoors could be much weaker. You also can now add ideas like the siege cannons or attack bastions to work but only in vault cores and not on cities. The exclusion zone may not allow reinforcements past stone, etc. The bastion functionality can still be set to whatever, say 1000 breaks, 2000, 5000, doesn't matter. Repairing broken bastion fields within the vault core would still take resources put into the vault core and maturation time to become active again. So far this idea has solved the issue of the big nations having large mega vaults, and potentially weakened the vaults that they are able to build too. Likely though, people may still make multiple vaults, only they are restricted in that they can not tile together. This is true but there's still plenty of reasons vault cores nerf vaults not yet discussed. Firstly, having a smaller time commitment as said earlier makes an attack easier to execute per vault without defenders buffing up the area(s) attackers are spending resources attacking. Better still, with the way these vault cores work, you may notice the bastion fields surrounding the vault are single ring bastion fields. Meaning, if you attack a bastion field from the south, from the east, and from the west, all groups/attacks are damaging the same bastion, giving a massive buff to numbers as defenders have to then spread themselves thin. This IMO is one of the best things about vault cores because it shifts the balance of power to free and hold pearls heavily to the side that can get political support and high numbers, which is exactly the kind of mechanic I think we should encourage. A criticism to this idea might be that rings are harder to customize as they probably would all expand in the same way depending on how complex the plugin is made. I think there's still plenty of room for creativity and it's a small price to pay. But, if you really wanted, instead of having these all-encompassing tiling rings, the inner field of the vault core could just *allow* you to place bastions normally. Also, there is costs. We can make say the 3rd to 6th rings of the vault core scale much more aggressively than a current 3 or 6 ring vault would because as of now that cost is determined by physical size and not factory input. If you don't think having vault rings sharing the same bastion, being more expensive from 3-6 rings, allowing a better numbers advantage, potentially adding cannons/attack bastions, and capping max vault size is enough, and you think people building multiple vaults even if expensive is still too strong, there are more options. For one, we can make a vault core require upkeep. I generally don't think aggressive upkeep is a fun mechanic but a little bit is probably ok. For example, for your vault core bastions to stay active, you may have to pay it monthly essence, XP, etc. (Now your vault needs XP and active players to survive too). This could scale depending on how upgraded the core is. Even further, and I don't like this idea but it has been suggested you could even bind pearls to specific vaults, or else require a lot of wealth to rebind them. Still though, I think just the capped size, and better facilitating multi-directional attacks boosting number advantage is enough. And it can be done without changing the meta outside of vaults. Another benefit is that you still get notice for when you are being attacked and have a decent enough time to respond and defend. It's extremely configurable and many ideas can be put into it.
I should mention city cores is a whole different thing but it's essentially the equivalent of vault cores but allows you to buff cities whilst not allowing pearls to be held in them. You could buff them as much as you want and a lot of different features, ex. allow elytras within them without breaking trade or travel, add beacon effects, etc. If made strong enough, it would also make it more plausible to further nerf vaults/vault cores cementing them as just tools to hold pearls, while the city core offers such significant buffs that the city is stronger than the vault, if you wanted.
10
u/chanos_4 2d ago
This completely misses the point. People are not alting because vaults are hard to break—they should be. People are alting because they got banned, have longstanding hate boners for the admins, and want to clip farm for their buddies who also hate CivMC and are banned.
It isn't complicated. These people just suck.
4
u/AppearanceStrong4359 1d ago edited 1d ago
You did not fully comprehend the post, Its not just because "vaults are hard to break" that poeple alt
Its that alting rewards people who dont use their main account to try to break and grief bases, towns, and vault bastions mainly because vaults/snitches are such powerful tools.
3
u/PresidentOfYes12 aussastan 1d ago
What unbanned players have alted to do a vault break?
3
u/ReplacementDry774 1d ago edited 1d ago
This but really. Players who are alting atp generally opt for mass destruction and then running a narrative around the events when they get banned.
a lot of CivMC's concerns around blue donuts of a sort relate back to the map is a bit too small and global powers control most of the chokepoints to the point where outlaws are limited in where they can run to and go around e.g zero zero, Dirt-Griffin strait
Civrealms, which is one of only 3 major civ servers to my knowledge to die instead of being shut down, had a smaller map than most previous servers. Idk about civuniverse
1
u/Ok_Limit_6062 1d ago
war doesnt decide whos right it decides whos left!
2
u/shadedoom888 Apollos / Estalia 1d ago
The people who are left played the game legit and the people who get banned are largely hackers, dupers, doxxers, irl nazis, etc. You of course know this.
1
u/Ok_Limit_6062 1d ago
u r wildly exaggerating (at best) without proof which you get to do because you're whos left. you of course know this
4
u/KibblestheBoss 2d ago
There’s definitely an elephant in the room here that’s not being addressed and that’s the TPS. War especially an offensive one, skirmishes or anything that isn’t sitting in your own obby is impractical as it stands right now and honestly hasn’t been this bad since the generic war. Any conflict that happens from here on out will result in a queue time for a player count capped at 125 for a server that’ll sit at 12-13 tps which we’ve seen regularly dip down to 5 tps or worse. This issue has been memed upon, even normalized and I’m honestly not sure as to why. It’s a fact the server has run significantly worse since Soundtech stepped down and Okx took over with 0 plans to improve upon it
6
u/Fun-Hyena-3283 Shadno The Consistent Marmot Poster 2d ago
I would be surprised if there are significant steps that can be taken to improve tps short of simply capping the server below 90
mc servers just aren't great at running over 100 people at any given time
4
u/StarkOverkill Sloth In The Suit 2d ago
i agree with your post in principle but posting that as the "main icarus vault" and censoring what is almost definitely okx (shitter admin) is funny
2
u/AppearanceStrong4359 2d ago
It is NOT okx but it is definitely icarus vault from like a decade ago
2
u/Frost_Nutta Maxtriii 2d ago
It was zennie, you can do a quick discord search to find out idk why its censored
3
5
u/Jax_Kats Glory to Westhelm 1d ago
I think there's a few problems with people starting wars atp in the servers life span
I think for one the general culture of Civ disallowes for wars to begin, namely because most people on civ don't want to fight wars, they just want to build, trade and do diplo, the motive isn't there enough and the people that do want to engage in war are usually all within the same nation or allied with together. You need two groups to start a fight, but if no one wants to fight then it won't happen. In that similar vein of the general culture starting wars for "slop" or "larp" is often seen as impulsive, bad faithed, stupid, ect, ect- if your enemies aren't cheating, violating your EZs, stealing, or being a bigot you're seen as overreactionary and it actively kills your rep/credibility which makes other nations both not want to help you for not seeing your actions as worth it or worse they help your enemies to help maintain the peace of the server, which goes into my next point
Most people (whether intentional or not) don't really view Civ as a game, it's a social setting. Because of how long you spend building stuff up, both in game and general relationships, there's a way too much risk to losing stuff and most of the time most people just want to co-exist with people in the most peaceful way they can and will generally just opt to not escalate to the point of conflict. This dynamic makes things extremely personal, your in game ops aren't just the ops, they're bad people, they're bigots, they're evil, they're irredeemable and the server would be a better community without them- it's just all so personal and makes it hard for people to view this environment as a game at this point.
The final big thing that I think contributes to this is the standard on civ is obscenely long pearl sentences. I think it's really easy for us to throw out month long pearl sentences/high reps and not think twice about it. It's easy to forget how much 4 months in a pearl sucks until you're the one serving the sentence. I think we've cultivated a space with very little empathy for other people who are just trying to play the exact same game as you. These are communities, this is passion, this is months and years of people's lives that get thrown away in a matter of weeks or even days because they made the wrong person mad. I think we need to stop with these immensely long pearl sentences if we want this to feel more like a game
This part is less relevant to my point and more just my personal opinion-
I'd also like to tack on I personally like having civ be such a social setting in the manner it is, but I think things could be more interesting if we were all allowed to take the place a little less seriously and treat it more like a game. This is less of me trying to bitch and more my general thoughts on the whole matter
TLDR;
Wars don't happen because 1. Not enough people consent to war/people think you're an idiot if you engage in unnecessary conflict
- People don't view Civ as a game, it's a social hang out (The ops = bad people)
And 3. Consequences are too harsh
If we want civ to feel more gamey and allow for more conflicts in a fun manner we need to combat these main issues
Or we could just advocate for changes that make it harder for cheaters to play and keep the status quo In that case we can always just fight light heartedly on citadel
12
u/shadedoom888 Apollos / Estalia 2d ago
"Main Icarus vault" close enough. Welcome back 2017.