Though, I still suggest we make the new +2/+2/-1 banners be visually different. By appearance we know what these all mean without needing any text:
It is only the three colour banner that isn’t clear anymore. One idea could be to make the new +2/+2/-1 banner have two vertical colours and a border. That is, make it look like a +1/+1 banner, like the blue/brown example above, and give it a border of the -1 colour.
They could simply introduce a new color for the crown thingy on top (in addition to the silver and gold used today).
I’m still convinced they simply screwed up and are now wondering whether to leave things be as they are, like they did with The Warrens, so this could very well remain a unique anomaly not needing any particular signaling.
I don’t understand why everyone keeps asking for +2/+2/-2 as a “fix” for the “imbalance”.
The banners are most important for the factions, for which there is always one colour missing, so that the factions are always gaining +2/+2 with no negative effect.
For the rest of players, more often than not banners are selected to enhance one or two primary colours only, so the negative banner effect is much of a muchness really IMHO.
tl;dr - increasing the negative effect does not negate positive effect
I’d tend to agree in most cases, but I still think having the same net-gains across all banners is better game balance, as a general rule. But you’re right that it’s pretty easy to avoid having the minus color present at all, so it doesn’t matter if it’s -1 or -2 because both are irrelevant to that team. That’s why, even though I still think -3 would be more appropriate than -1, it’s not really solving the problem as I see it.
But why not have a +2, +2, -1, -1 instead? That would be a net-balance that is interesting because - suddenly - it’s harder to avoid being penalized for that big +4 “advantage.”
I get banners are probably only currently programmed to deal with 3 colors at a time, but. That’s not a great argument for having net +3 banners, imo.
The bug report here on the forum is still open. Anything Salty said while streaming probably only counts as personal opinion, otherwise there would have been an update. It’s not like she hasn’t been wrong in the past, like when she kept on insisting that the Werewoods faction belongs to Maugrim Woods, even when confronted with data to the contrary.