Dragon Banners: A Thorough Look at Problems & Solutions

[Talindra.4958]

just remove the banner.

[Riba.3271]

Several dragon banner threads a week for several months already. I don't understand why this thing isn't in their hotfix list already. Next balance patch is way too far away.

I would like to add that spellbreakers remove boons and immobilize with CC meaning stunspam (dragonbanner 2) is also boon removal and immob spam. So just slight damage nerfs might not be enough as permastunning enemies and removing boons 3 times AoE every 8 seconds while stunning enemies is quite a lot of CC spam (dragonbanner 2)..

Repeat after me: HOTFIX

[Sovereign.1093]

If your a pirateship team, dragon banners don't affect you as much. It's even a bit useless against you especially if the team you face is boons melee heavy.

This is the soft fix for the DB. Run differently. But beware in areas small and tight, they will shine.

[Corkie.9407]

Given the amount of forum threads currently discussing Dragon Banners, along with the daily complaints from commanders/players on multiple servers, I hope ANET considers the carefully thought-out solutions suggested by @Tiffany.8576 and others. In their current form, dragon banners favor the larger group with more territory (the aforementioned "snowball effect"). That runs counter to the purported reasoning behind the banners in the first place; to help outnumbered groups.

[gavyne.6847]

Nerfs to dragon banner 3 & 5 are coming next update: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/688406906?t=00h23m01s

[TazR.8745]

Couldn't agree more, Dragon Banners need an actual nerf that properly addresses the problem. Hopefully this post will shine a light on the root cause so Anet can get to work.

[Tiffany.8576]

@"gavyne.6847" said:Nerfs to dragon banner 3 & 5 are coming next update: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/688406906?t=00h23m01s

This is hugely encouraging to hear! Thanks for linking that.

I think ultimately keeping them somewhat powerful, but limiting their use to be a defensive tactic for the structure they're slotted in is the best solution personally as it solves a lot of the problems while granting defenders that may be struggling an additional advantage which I think makes sense.

For now though, if they're being kept as they are in terms of how they work, toning down the most problematic elements of them is sensible as a band-aid to limit their oppressiveness. Changes to skills #3 and #5 will definitely be welcomed.

[Rakan Buuyon.8576]

@Chaba.5410 said:This won't be a popular opinion, but every single time I see one of these types of posts calling for dragon banner nerfs, I just can't relate. Especially the discussion about skill #5. Even when I've run with a pug group, the fire road is easily side stepped and avoided. My own personal experience has been that they're mostly just annoying. Maybe I'm just not running with bad/unorganized enough players or the opposing team with the banners is just bad at using them. /shrug

It's not so much that a single banner makes a group unbeatable, or a fight impossible. The problem is it's a massive force multiplier, as it was designed to be.

It's incredibly easy for a banner to put out over a million damage in an incredibly short engagement, generally an order of magnitude higher than anyone else in the group. They have access to incredibly high amounts of CC, many times overshadowing what the rest of the group has, not to mention what any single person has. Again, this is by design, it's entire purpose is for a small group to be able to hold off a bigger group.

The problem come when groups are now stacking multiple banners, on top of already being the dominate force. If there's a choke, it's literally impassible, even in open field fights, pushes can be impossible.

So sure, a 40 man vs a 40 man with one banner isn't a massive deal, however, a 60+ map queue with 4+ banners is an entirely different story. You have 4 players basically playing with hacks on, in the middle of an already massive force. None of them have to be particularly amazing with the banner in order for it to just make it pure cancer.

Perhaps if the rest of the game mode was designed in a way for a team building up to what effectively is nuclear weapons, with strong options for counter play in the form of being able to prevent them from obtaining them without needing an even bigger force than they have, then clearly overpowered things could be an interesting mechanic that punishes teams that don't pay attention. However, as it stands now, the team with the most players just puts banners on literally every structure, then uses those banners and players to hold and capture more structures, for more banners, etc etc etc. As Tiff said, snowballs.

[Bgalvin.8136]

Could not agree more, there is no good reason a zerg/blob should be running around with 3+ banners. Restricting the banners to the territory where they are pulled makes the most sense to me, this keeps them defensive in nature and they can work as intended.

[Aeolus.3615]

@Bgalvin.8136 said:Could not agree more, there is no good reason a zerg/blob should be running around with 3+ banners. Restricting the banners to the territory where they are pulled makes the most sense to me, this keeps them defensive in nature and they can work as intended.

Note that some classes can increase banner performance due utilities,traits and glitches.

[Chaba.5410]

@Blockhead Magee.3092 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:This won't be a popular opinion, but every single time I see one of these types of posts calling for dragon banner nerfs, I just can't relate. Especially the discussion about skill #5. Even when I've run with a pug group, the fire road is easily side stepped and avoided. My own personal experience has been that they're mostly just annoying. Maybe I'm just not running with bad/unorganized enough players or the opposing team with the banners is just bad at using them. /shrug

One banner, no problem. Two banners gets a bit tougher, but manageable. Three well placed banners? Getting out of control. Four of them? Goose is cooked.

Ah, so like everything in this game the problem is stacking. It would perhaps be better to prevent more than one type of banner at a time rather than nerf it so that a single banner becomes unviable. A friend had also suggested they be transforms like the charr car instead of bundle weapons.

[Solanum.6983]

I think Keeping it tied to the camp/keep/towers boarder it spawns in is the best solution instead of nerfing it entirely. I'm not a fan of DBs but they can be useful for outnumbered people trying to defend something. It also solves the problems of multiple banners in one group as well as them being used in big numbers.It sucks that they have in my opinion the best solution already in mind but are putting it on hold, this way you can keep them strong and interesting but make them a defensive tactic.

[DeLys.5380]

@"Teratus.2859" said:Good post, fully agree with the issues.

I'm favouring that one solution about Banners being tied to their location so that only defenders have access to them and no more zergs running several banners at once.This makes the most sense to me and turns Banners into a purely defensive strategy which to me sounds great.

This is one of the suggestions I made and I think it's the best one, making sense within the overall scope of the game. As I've said before, tactics slotted into objectives are supposed to be defensive and/or to fortify/improve that structure/objective. Why should a banner tactic be any different? This is the same reason mobile canons were not implemented. The structure already has a "tactics and upgrade" range designated around it, which is clearly delineated on the map. Limit the banner to that area and make it disappear if the wielder goes beyond that line. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

Just do it.

[Dawdler.8521]

@DeLys.5380 said:

@"Teratus.2859" said:Good post, fully agree with the issues.

I'm favouring that one solution about Banners being tied to their location so that only defenders have access to them and no more zergs running several banners at once.This makes the most sense to me and turns Banners into a purely defensive strategy which to me sounds great.

This is one of the suggestions I made and I think it's the best one, making sense within the overall scope of the game. As I've said before, tactics slotted into objectives are supposed to be defensive and/or to fortify/improve that structure/objective. Why should a banner tactic be any different? This is the same reason mobile canons were not implemented. The structure already has a "tactics and upgrade" range designated around it, which is clearly delineated on the map. Limit the banner to that area and make it disappear if the wielder goes beyond that line. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

Just do it.Awfully complicated way to limit it, you'd have program an entire new system of rules, AoE ranges and visual effects for every objective.

Much simpler to just give it a 5m lifespan or something. Sure it could be used offensivly, but just getting from one objective to another will be almost half the cd anyway. If you really want ensure that, also apply a similar rule as normal golems - you cant get speed buffs anymore. Much easier and literally only an effect on the player for both things (since it would be the same effect).

[Teratus.2859]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@DeLys.5380 said:

@"Teratus.2859" said:Good post, fully agree with the issues.

I'm favouring that one solution about Banners being tied to their location so that only defenders have access to them and no more zergs running several banners at once.This makes the most sense to me and turns Banners into a purely defensive strategy which to me sounds great.

This is one of the suggestions I made and I think it's the best one, making sense within the overall scope of the game. As I've said before, tactics slotted into objectives are supposed to be defensive and/or to fortify/improve that structure/objective. Why should a banner tactic be any different? This is the same reason mobile canons were not implemented. The structure already has a "tactics and upgrade" range designated around it, which is clearly delineated on the map. Limit the banner to that area and make it disappear if the wielder goes beyond that line. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

Just do it.Awfully complicated way to limit it, you'd have program an entire new system of rules, AoE ranges and visual effects for every objective.

Much simpler to just give it a 5m lifespan or something. Sure it could be used offensivly, but just getting from one objective to another will be almost half the cd anyway.

They already have those kinds of limit systems in PvE.. usually around heart transformations.Leave the area and you loose those transformation.They could probably do something similar with Banners, make them act like a transformation with a range limit, this way they could also get rid of the ability to use utility skills as well which was another complaint a lot of people have about them.

[Tiawal.2351]

tl;dr - banners are low risk, high reward, exploit level broken, adding a no skill gameplay

But I guess they fit in well with those other problems ignored for so long time:

1. Since HoT and PoF expansions, there are too much boons in WvW that can be kept up indefinitely.
2. Passives from traits and other sources, and automated processing abound, keeping one alive -- for a very long time -- without need of thinking and timing, just by using builds built around these.

And the list could go on, but it's already off topic.Instead of these being solved, the banners just add more on top of these: run a build like these and also have a banner.

[Solanum.6983]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@DeLys.5380 said:

@"Teratus.2859" said:Good post, fully agree with the issues.

I'm favouring that one solution about Banners being tied to their location so that only defenders have access to them and no more zergs running several banners at once.This makes the most sense to me and turns Banners into a purely defensive strategy which to me sounds great.

This is one of the suggestions I made and I think it's the best one, making sense within the overall scope of the game. As I've said before, tactics slotted into objectives are supposed to be defensive and/or to fortify/improve that structure/objective. Why should a banner tactic be any different? This is the same reason mobile canons were not implemented. The structure already has a "tactics and upgrade" range designated around it, which is clearly delineated on the map. Limit the banner to that area and make it disappear if the wielder goes beyond that line. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

Just do it.Awfully complicated way to limit it, you'd have program an entire new system of rules, AoE ranges and visual effects for every objective.

Much simpler to just give it a 5m lifespan or something. Sure it could be used offensivly, but just getting from one objective to another will be almost half the cd anyway. If you

really

want ensure that, also apply a similar rule as normal golems - you cant get speed buffs anymore. Much easier and literally only an effect on the player for both things (since it would be the same effect).

Not that complicated, I think I remember them saying something along the lines of it work like a trip wire, cross the boarder and it disappears from your hand. You you could still cast spells across the boarder just not cross it yourself without loosing the banner.

[TNT.8394]

Anet shoud adress the overpowered DragonBanner issue indeed - like less dmg, longer cooldowns and/or hinder ability to stealth/superspeed.