Proof the Bombshell should be nerfed?? Check out this game I just had...

[CombatEX]

Brief Game Commentary
I see that many people have already commented so I don't think I need to do any extensive analysis at this point. I'll just say this though - I'm happy when my opponent puts a forward bombshell so early (by turn 4). It's always easy to deal with because they haven't had a chance to fortify it and it is exposed. Your critical mistake was turn 4. You shouldn't have moved your soldier up so far without any vision. Then you spawn another soldier and move it right next to your first? If you had kept your soldiers back you would have been in a much stronger position. It's too risky to do the play that you did without any knowledge of your opponents movements.

Balance Discussion
As for 'overpowered' discussions, I find it largely useless until OML releases actual data. I switched from mostly scallywags to mostly feedback in the past month and here's what I have to say. Yes, I now fully realize just how annoying bombshells can be (no, not second turn forward bombshells as in your game, those are trivial - rather, defensive bombshell turtling into a slow push or a delayed forward bombshell on particular maps). However, in the case of an attempted slow push setup, I feel that it is the goal of the feedback/veggienaut/adorables player to finish the scallywag player before this happens. It is good that the different races have different play styles, strengths, and goals. Scallywags prefer surviving until the late game where they will build an advantage while other teams such as Feedback want to finish the game earlier.

Frustration and Bias
Now, that being said, Scallywags may still be too strong. But, we really need OML to release data (preferably matchup and map data if possible) before we can be certain. In the meantime no rash balance decisions should be made. Until then, I do agree that Scallywags can be a huge annoyance to deal with on particular maps and it's extremely frustrating facing a well constructed turtle. However, I've realized that this can also create a bias against them out of frustration (firsthand experience) even if they may not actually be overpowered. Losing to a turtling scallywag player is probably one of the more irritating losses, but this could also cloud perception.

To be completely honest, since switching to maining Feedback, even I find myself wanting bombshells to be nerfed from time to time. However, then I remind myself that doing so without the complete picture provided by OML would be premature and potentially detrimental. If nothing else, having more detailed statistics would guide the proper changes to correct balance issues if they exist.

Informed Balance Decisions over Hasty Appeasement and Importance of Map Balance
And finally, I've said this in the past, but no harm in reiterating - there should be a focus on map balancing. This also ties into my comments above about not making hasty decisions without data. For example, say that it turns out Scallywags are balanced on Sweetie Plains despite being too powerful on other maps. Then, we would be able to make better informed choices in addressing the issue. For instance, dropping or modifying the problematic maps (Peekaboo - please go away ).

Of course, it could also turn out that Scallywags are too strong all around. In this case nerfs to the bombshell will be necessary. However, I highly doubt that the imbalance, if one exists, will be equal across all maps. Let's say that Scallywags do turn out to be overpowered across the board. 80-20 Peekaboo, 60-40 Sweetie Plains, 70-30 all other maps (Note that these are completely made up). In this case, say you only nerf the bombshell. Will that balance the game? Most certainly not. If you balance the bombshell to fix the balance on Peekaboo, the Scallywags will then be underpowered on the rest of the maps. If you balance the bombshell around Sweetie Plains, the Scallywags will still be overpowered on the rest of the maps. Now, this is a simplification as there are map dependent factors that will come into effect depending on the specific change to the bombshell, but the basic point stands. Simply modifying the bombshell isn't going to fix balance without addressing specific map issues.

Bottom line: Regardless of how overpowered Scallywags are (or aren't), map modifications and/or map replacements will always be required to achieve true balance.
The only time this wouldn't be true is if the match-ups percentages are miraculously the same across all maps.

Suggestions (Tangent)
This probably should be in its own thread but I'll probably just put this in the beta forums or a PM at some point
On a side note, OML is currently working on implementing seasons so I thought I'd propose a feature request. Map veto (like in Starcraft 2). Now, I know what you may be thinking. "You shouldn't be able to get out of playing maps just because you don't like them." Well, my reason for this request is two fold.
NOTE: You can't just veto as much as you want, there is a limit to the number of maps you can veto. In Starcraft 2 this number is 3, but it could always be changed for Outwitters.

1. Sometimes there are genuinely terrible maps as I think most top level players will agree is the case with Peekaboo. Players shouldn't have to endure 100 turn+ turtle matches with Scallywag players.
2. OML can use the veto data to quickly see which maps players dislike and can switch those out for new maps when a new season arrives. This is what Blizzard does with map veto data. When planning map lineup for new seasons they consider which maps players veto often as well as which maps have the worst balance issues using their map specific match-up data.

My final suggestion would be a map editor. This can be sold for additional, much needed monetization as well as save OML the effort of designing balanced maps. These maps obviously won't be in the league play initially. However, OML can use a similar approach as Blizzard does with Starcraft 2. It's largely agreed that Blizzard 1v1 maps are terrible in Starcraft 2. Many tournaments utilize tested and highly acclaimed community made maps. Some of these maps eventually get incorporated into the official ladder. This makes for an all around more enjoyable, competitive experience and saves work for Blizzard after their initial investment into a map editor. Now, I understand that this isn't a trivial task, but just one of those far future suggestions. If nothing else, it's another source of income down the road as purchases of the uber pack and individual teams die down.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

blckace Wrote:1) No splash damage on base ever, this must be implemented as soon as possible, and anyone who disagrees doesn't understand the game.
2) Splash damage that kills units doesn't generate wits that's if a bombshell kills two units with one hit it won't get two wits simple and fair.
3) Don't change the unshelling and shelling cost at one wit it's very good if it's gone this thing is unstoppable.
4) The 2 movement instead of three seems very reasonable but I don't know how scallywags players feel about it? is it a big nerf? it seems like the logical thing considering how strong it's (like a heavy except stronger)
5) Best solution ever 2 hp shelled unhealed, 3 hp shelled healed this would make everything so good (every other special goes up to three hp why does this one go up to four? it's god damn invincible) it would make them think twice about where they place it!

When the time comes for a decision, if a nerf is required, these suggestions should be kept in mind. I do like your first and second points. I don't think anyone ever considered the buff you state in the third point, this is about nerfs, not buffs right? It would be insane to remove shelling and unshelling costs! So yes, I agree as do all other mid-high level players I imagine. Now, I disagree with the fourth point. It could fix some aspects of the bombshell, but it also could create problems. Namely, limiting movement could promote further defensive play with bombshells (turtling) since it's harder to be aggressive with them in a forward position. As for point five, this could work. All in all, good suggestions.