Excelsior/Centaur

[Zebh]

posted on June 14th, 2011, 5:59 pm

Last edited by Zebh on June 15th, 2011, 7:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

The lineage of the Centaur or its componants is irrelevent, the refits it has gone through are what count. The ship is classed as a military-specific chassis and is equipt accordingly, the Excelsior is not.

its components are extremely relevant, the e1 and centaur share stuff in common. the centaur shouldnt eclipse the e1. even in canon 1 centaur was just about taking a bug, and that bug had plot armour. the centaur should be slightly less than an excel in total, but with slightly higher off. both the centaur and e1 were built in times of peace and were refitted for dominion war. i just dont buy centaur > e1 at everything. just like centaur > intrep. the intrep is a more modern cruiser, and should be better than a centaur. i wouldnt mind more common centaurs if they had less effectiveness than an intrep.

Mod. split from Topic: A collection of balance changes

[Tyler]

posted on June 14th, 2011, 6:05 pm

Last edited by Tyler on June 14th, 2011, 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

They share appearance, they do not share interior tech. Centaur was refitted to be military, the Excelsior doesn't have that benefit. Judging by looks isn't reliable.

FO is also set quite a while past canon, so refits don't always match up.

posted on June 14th, 2011, 6:18 pm

They share appearance, they do not share interior tech. Centaur was refitted to be military, the Excelsior doesn't have that benefit. Judging by looks isn't reliable.

the excel does, it was refitted for a war, hence the dominion war refit naming.

judging by looks is good for this case. ships that share design traits are from the same era, connie/miranda, gal/neb etc.

just like e1/centaur.

so we can assume that the e1 and centuar are very similar in tech level. in which case the centaur should not be so far ahead of the e1. the e1 was a battleship in its era, while the centaur would have been a cruiser. just like gal was battleship to nebula a cruiser. if the centaur was of a different lineage the idea of a military only ship would fit more. like defiant to akira. but they clearly are built from different stuff. while the centaur and e1 are built from similar stuff.

[Tyler]

posted on June 14th, 2011, 6:30 pm

Last edited by Tyler on June 14th, 2011, 6:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Judging by looks doesn't tell you what's inside, it only tells what basic era it originates from. The weapons are already different in the torpedoes, with the Centaur not having the same special energy limitation as the Excelsior and able to fire more often. Nothing in canon suggests a refit to the Excelsior, and the 'refit' variation existed all the way back at the start (Lakota was unique and never seen again).  The two ships would have originally been similar, but would part ways when they started getting new roles and upgrades specific to those roles.

Your assumption pretty much says that it doesn't matter what tech a ship has, the newer looking one is stronger. If a Galaxy had all systems replaced with those of a Sovereign, is it still inferior because it still looks like the original?

Another question; why is the Excelsior inherently superior to anything else witrh a similar look? Just because we saw it first? Nothing in canon says it is (plot armor doesn't count, it doesn't play by the rules).

EDIT: The increased value probably comes from a combination of the lack of a special energy cost for the second torpedo launcher and the military chassis passive.

posted on June 14th, 2011, 6:49 pm

Judging by looks doesn't tell you what's inside, it only tells what basic era it originates from.

i disagree, i think if two ships share so much in common, they are similar.

Nothing in canon suggests a refit to the Excelsior

actually there is evidence. lets ignore that it makes the most sense that they are refitted, look at the orange phasers, tmp era had red pulse like phasers. the excel's have orange phasers later.

The two ships would have originally been similar, but would part ways when they started getting new roles and upgrades specific to those roles.

both were needed for a war, so both would get combat focused upgrades.

Your assumption pretty much says that it doesn't matter what tech a ship has, the newer looking one is stronger. If a Galaxy had all systems replaced with those of a Sovereign, is it still inferior because it still looks like the original?

when did i say that? i said we can assume that the e1 and centaur are similar in tech level. in this case the bigger (by quite a bit) one should be stronger. ie e1 stronger than centaur.

putting the systems of a sovvie in a galaxy is a silly prospect that i would bet is impossible as they are different ships.

Another question; why is the Excelsior inherently superior to anything else witrh a similar look? Just because we saw it first? Nothing in canon says it is (plot armor doesn't count, it doesn't play by the rules).

again you're putting words in my mouth. i never mentioned "anything else with a similar look" the only ship in question here is the centuar, which happens to be the only e1 lineage ship. which would u say is more powerful, galaxy or nebula? its a similar comparison.

the excels never had plot armour, in fact they had anti plot armour. lets count their combat appearances:
ST6: wasnt engaged in any serious combat, took a couple hits then they used technobabble to win
ST gens: got its arse kicked by a technobabble anomaly
all of the dominion war: lots of them, they and the mirandas shared some serious pain. anti plot armour, vfx needed some ships to explode, mirandas and e1 got the call.

the only time we see a centaur it was barely matching a bug, and if sisko had shot back like a man, he would have done a similar amount of damage in return i presume. granted that bug did have plot armour in the form of main characters aboard.

i just dont feel comfortable with the centaur being so much better than an e1. even using the "its solely for combat" explanation. in the dominion war everything had to be dedicated to combat. i think it should have 2 lower def than an e1, and same/1 higher off. to indicate that they tried harder to give more guns to the centaur. presumably before the war, the centaur would have been 3 lower def and 3 lower off than the e1. if they focused on the centaur being a patrol/escort craft (as per the tooltip) then the speed is actually believable. i definitely dont think a centaur should be making intreps look so bad.

[Tyler]

posted on June 14th, 2011, 7:08 pm

Last edited by Tyler on June 14th, 2011, 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

i disagree, i think if two ships share so much in common, they are similar.

We don't know they do have much in common, we only see the surface and little else.

actually there is evidence. lets ignore that it makes the most sense that they are refitted, look at the orange phasers, tmp era had red pulse like phasers. the excel's have orange phasers later.

Keeping phasers up to spec for the Excelsior, which is a bit different to the full 'War refit' idea.

both were needed for a war, so both would get combat focused upgrades.

A war that was decades ago with nothing to indicate the Excelsior is activly used for combat outside of the random distress call anymore. The Centaur being a military design implies it is still used to fight and probably overtook the Excelsior in war systems.

when did i say that? i said we can assume that the e1 and centaur are similar in tech level. in this case the bigger (by quite a bit) one should be stronger. ie e1 stronger than centaur.

putting the systems of a sovvie in a galaxy is a silly prospect that i would bet is impossible as they are different ships.

You said that the Intrepid is superior because it came out in a later era, seemingly not taking refits into account. You pretty said that no matter how heavily refitted the Centuar is, the Excelsior will always be superior even if the refits fall behind because of appearance would be a different thing. I should have specified...

Nothing keeps the Galaxy from being given Sovereign systems but cost, considering an the Lakota shows such refits are possible.

again you're putting words in my mouth. i never mentioned "anything else with a similar look" the only ship in question here is the centuar, which happens to be the only e1 lineage ship. which would u say is more powerful, galaxy or nebula? its a similar comparison.

Saying the Centaur is inherently weaker doesn't leave much room for interpritation. Galaxy/Nebula is similar, but we know more about them.

the excels never had plot armour, in fact they had anti plot armour. lets count their combat appearances:
ST6: wasnt engaged in any serious combat, took a couple hits then they used technobabble to win
ST gens: got its arse kicked by a technobabble anomaly
all of the dominion war: lots of them, they and the mirandas shared some serious pain. anti plot armour, vfx needed some ships to explode, mirandas and e1 got the call.

the only time we see a centaur it was barely matching a bug, and if sisko had shot back like a man, he would have done a similar amount of damage in return i presume. granted that bug did have plot armour in the form of main characters aboard.

That bug was the plot armor ship I was talking about, the only ship we saw the Centaur fight was a 'hero ship' with the main characters on.


I'm not sure if you noticed by addition to my post or start posting before it was added, but I did suggest the offensive value is a combination of the passive (which geves an offensive increase) and the superior torpedoes. They consitently fire 2 every shot, where the Excelsior only fires a few doubles before going back to 1 torp with an extra every so often.

Intrepids also aren't warships, a ship refitted for battle would have an advantage over them.

On a side note, we seem to have a habit of getting into these discussions...

posted on June 14th, 2011, 7:36 pm

The Centaur being a military design implies it is still used to fight and probably overtook the Excelsior in war systems.

Where's the evidence for the Centaur being a military design, btw?

posted on June 14th, 2011, 7:41 pm

Military Chassis
    +3 Offensive Value
    +2 Defensive Value
    -5 System Value

        The Centaur Class was developed during
        the Dominion War as a dedicated escort
        and defense vessel. Just like the
        Defiant Class, it is only equipped with
        rudimentary medical and science
        technology

posted on June 14th, 2011, 7:44 pm

We don't know they do have much in common, we only see the surface and little else.

i think we do, like how gals and nebs have a lot in common, they're cut from the same cloth

Keeping phasers up to spec for the Excelsior, which is a bit different to the full 'War refit' idea.

shield strength has increased a lot over the tmp to tng gap (as said by alternate yar). but the excels dont die to modern weapons that easy, so shields are refit. thats weapons and shields changed, why not get the computers and sensors out of the way while you're at it? starfleet isnt gonna bring in an old ship and refit only 1 system. they were refit as any ship would be refit over time.

A war that was decades ago with nothing to indicate the Excelsior is activly used for combat outside of the random distress call anymore. The Centaur being a military design implies it is still used to fight and probably overtook the Excelsior in war systems.

earlier you were talking about canon now you are talking about fleetops story, make up your mind. the "centaurs for patrol/escort after the dominion war" doesnt really hold water either, as sabres and defiants are around in larger numbers for that. there's only so much you can do with a chassis, you cant refit an nebula to be hugely better than a galaxy any more than you can refit a centaur to be hugely better than an e1.

You said that the Intrepid is superior because it came out in a later era, seemingly not taking refits into account. You pretty said that no matter how heavily refitted the Centuar is, the Excelsior will always be superior even if the refits fall behind because of appearance would be a different thing. I should have specified...

actually i said it was superior because its a) more modern, yes modern tech is better than old tech in most cases, and b) its a cruiser, the centaur is a destroyer.

Nothing keeps the Galaxy from being given Sovereign systems but cost, considering an the Lakota shows such refits are possible.

thats a bad example, the lakota refit is nothing like what you are suggesting. it was given new systems, it wasnt given galaxy/ambas systems, or the systems of any specific ship. it was just refitted. and given a new type of torpedo. nothing to suggest it was given the systems from any other ship.

you couldnt put the systems of a sovvie in a galaxy any more than you could put parts from a tractor into a space fighter. you would have to develop a refit for the galaxy, equally expensive.

Saying the Centaur is inherently weaker doesn't leave much room for interpritation. Galaxy/Nebula is similar, but we know more about them.

saying centaur < e1 doesnt imply anything about any other ships of the e1 lineage. for all we know there was a bigger ship in the lost era with the same lineage but stronger than the e1. but being of the same tech and being smaller certainly implies a lot.

I'm not sure if you noticed by addition to my post or start posting before it was added, but I did suggest the offensive value is a combination of the passive (which geves an offensive increase) and the superior torpedoes. They consitently fire 2 every shot, where the Excelsior only fires a few doubles before going back to 1 torp with an extra every so often.

that explains the high power, i just want that power to go away. cos i think its got too much. id have it fire the same torps as the excel, but without the additional ones.

Intrepids also aren't warships, a ship refitted for battle would have an advantage over them.

they arent, but starfleet is a defence force as well, so their newer ships get the newer defensive tech, and the intreps have the benefit of the dominion war as well.

On a side note, we seem to have a habit of getting into these discussions...

where else am i gonna get typing pracitce?

quoted stats

not canon

posted on June 14th, 2011, 7:59 pm

quoted stats

Circular reasoning, anyone?

You can't quote a piece of Fleet Ops in a discussion to justify the balance of that same piece of Fleet Ops.

And yeah, Fleet Ops is not canon either.

posted on June 14th, 2011, 8:06 pm

i think we do, like how gals and nebs have a lot in common, they're cut from the same cloth

No, we don't. We know nothing about the Centaur. It exists, it has weapons and Warp drive. That's about all we know.

shield strength has increased a lot over the tmp to tng gap (as said by alternate yar). but the excels dont die to modern weapons that easy, so shields are refit. thats weapons and shields changed, why not get the computers and sensors out of the way while you're at it? starfleet isnt gonna bring in an old ship and refit only 1 system. they were refit as any ship would be refit over time.

Keeping ships up to date is still not the same as a 'War refit'.

earlier you were talking about canon now you are talking about fleetops story, make up your mind. the "centaurs for patrol/escort after the dominion war" doesnt really hold water either, as sabres and defiants are around in larger numbers for that. there's only so much you can do with a chassis, you cant refit an nebula to be hugely better than a galaxy any more than you can refit a centaur to be hugely better than an e1.

I normally speak of canon when talking about lack of information, that is the Centaur; no information. The 'decades later' hold water, considering your own previous comment about improvements over time.

actually i said it was superior because its a) more modern, yes modern tech is better than old tech in most cases, and b) its a cruiser, the centaur is a destroyer.

Again, we don't know what refits it went through. Your own arguments involve ships getting updated to modern standards, what makes the Centaur special in that it is impossible to update past day 1? 'Newer = better' only applies when comparing the original specs, refits to modernize ships don't tend to be as straight-foward.

We're also talking about a game where a battleship can barely pull through a battle with a cruiser by the skin of it's teeth.

thats a bad example, the lakota refit is nothing like what you are suggesting. it was given new systems, it wasnt given galaxy/ambas systems, or the systems of any specific ship. it was just refitted. and given a new type of torpedo. nothing to suggest it was given the systems from any other ship.

you couldnt put the systems of a sovvie in a galaxy any more than you could put parts from a tractor into a space fighter. you would have to develop a refit for the galaxy, equally expensive.

Which is exactly the same, new systems are new systems. The Sovereign systems are new systems, nothing more. Nothing makes them incompatible on a ship because it looks different from the outside.

A specific shape or hull color aren't required to use new tech...

saying centaur < e1 doesnt imply anything about any other ships of the e1 lineage. for all we know there was a bigger ship in the lost era with the same lineage but stronger than the e1. but being of the same tech and being smaller certainly implies a lot.

We don't know what the tech of a modern Centaur is in comparison to a modern Excelsior.

that explains the high power, i just want that power to go away. cos i think its got too much. id have it fire the same torps as the excel, but without the additional ones.

Make a mod, you always tell people that if the game doesn't meet their standards. It only has too much if it's a peacetime ship, which it apparently isn't here. The passive also implies it isn't an Excelsior-era ship at all, it only looks like one.

not canon

You can't quote a piece of Fleet Ops in a discussion to justify the balance of that same piece of Fleet Ops.

And yeah, Fleet Ops is not canon either.

It's canon to FO, which is the only 'canon' the Centaur was ever given. I can quote a bit of text that explains why a ship is the way it is. Especially considering it's about the FO version.

where else am i gonna get typing pracitce?

We sure seem to get plenty...

posted on June 14th, 2011, 8:26 pm

No, we don't. We know nothing about the Centaur. It exists, it has weapons and Warp drive. That's about all we know.

i prefer to think we do know about the relationship between centaur and e1 or neb and galaxy.

Keeping ships up to date is still not the same as a 'War refit'.

i think fed ships got refit for the dominion war, and as you're using fo facts, the e1s in fo are refits from the dominion war. i think its sensible that when a huge war broke out, starfleet made sure their ships got the most combat effectiveness they could.

I normally speak of canon when talking about lack of information, that is the Centaur; no information. The 'decades later' hold water, considering your own previous comment about improvements over time.
Again, we don't know what refits it went through. Your own arguments involve ships getting updated to modern standards, what makes the Centaur special in that it is impossible to update past day 1? 'Newer = better' only applies when comparing the original specs, refits to modernize ships don't tend to be as straight-foward.

the same applies to the e1, both of them would have got refits, i dont think its sensible that a centaur could be made so much better than an e1.

Which is exactly the same, new systems are new systems. The Sovereign systems are new systems, nothing more. Nothing makes them incompatible on a ship because it looks different from the outside.

you were talking about putting sovvie stuff into a galaxy, not just more modern sovvie era tech into a galaxy. refits of course use tech from a more modern era, but it wouldnt be sovvie systems, it would be systems from that era. and if centaurs are getting new upgrades why arent the intreps? why leave the intrep behind but spend money on advancing the centaur past the intrep? its silly. upgrade both.

Make a mod, you always tell people that if the game doesn't meet their standards.

you're putting words in my mouth again, i never said fleetops doesnt meet my standards, i was pointing out something i find less than perfect, im sure everyone has something they dont like about anything. nothing is a perfect match for anybody. and i cant make mods, im not a modder

It only has too much if it's a peacetime ship, which it apparently isn't here.

thats not true, im arguing it has too much because of its position in relation to the excel.

The passive also implies it isn't an Excelsior-era ship at all, it only looks like one.

starfleet just decided to abandon their styles and reuse an old style from over 50 years ago thats silly, the centaur is an entire class, not just a single kitbash of an old saucer laying around. they would have had to start an entire construction programme building blasts from the past. imagine a galaxy with excel nacelles or an intrep with connie deflector dish. tech isnt mix and match. the centaur looks completely e1 lineage.

We sure seem to get plenty...

its probably time for the agree to disagree, gg

[Atlantis]

posted on June 14th, 2011, 8:57 pm

Last edited by Atlantis on June 14th, 2011, 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It's canon to FO, which is the only 'canon' the Centaur was ever given. I can quote a bit of text that explains why a ship is the way it is. Especially considering it's about the FO version.

The discussion is to determine what we believe the stats for the Centaur should be. Your argument regarding those stats involves quoting those same stats.

It's circular reasoning.

"The sky is blue because it is blue."

My point is: SHOULD it have the "military vessel" passive, as it might not actually be a military vessel? In canon it was never specifically shown to be. It's as valid an opinion as anyone elses.

posted on June 14th, 2011, 9:00 pm

@ Myles:  since this is all speculative reasoning behind Centaur vs. Excel 1, why not just look to FO itself? 

  The Centaur has boosted stats because it's been refitted with a war package that sacrifices system value for combat effectiveness.  The Excel 1 does not sacrifice system value and has a very strong defensive passive - thus is more "well rounded".

  In fact I'm quite sure an E1 would beat a Centaur 1v1 in Fleet Operations .

[Tyler]

posted on June 14th, 2011, 9:04 pm

Last edited by Tyler on June 14th, 2011, 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

i prefer to think we do know about the relationship between centaur and e1 or neb and galaxy.

I prefer to keep an open mind about things we don't get info on rather than assume. Difference of approach, I guess.

i think fed ships got refit for the dominion war, and as you're using fo facts, the e1s in fo are refits from the dominion war. i think its sensible that when a huge war broke out, starfleet made sure their ships got the most combat effectiveness they could.

FO only has the Excel as a patrol ship but the Centaur being used for military roles. It's not odd that it could pass it by when one stops getting refits, and the Excel is being left in the dust.

you were talking about putting sovvie stuff into a galaxy, not just more modern sovvie era tech into a galaxy. refits of course use tech from a more modern era, but it wouldnt be sovvie systems, it would be systems from that era. and if centaurs are getting new upgrades why arent the intreps? why leave the intrep behind but spend money on advancing the centaur past the intrep? its silly. upgrade both.

Sovvie systems and modern Sovereign-era systems are the same. They're only known as Sovvie systems because they're on that ship. Quantums are Quantums. Still, the question wasn't about how practicle it is, but if it would still be inferior with those systems because it still looks like an early-TNG ship.

Why not upgrade both? Intended role. Why make a peacetime ship with good defences into a dedicated warship when you could make an existing class into one. The Intrepid would probably be too young for a role shift.

you're putting words in my mouth again, i never said fleetops doesnt meet my standards, i was pointing out something i find less than perfect, im sure everyone has something they dont like about anything. nothing is a perfect match for anybody. and i cant make mods, im not a modder

You're arguing that the Centaur doesn't match what you believe it should be and is inplemented in a way it shouldn't, so that means the ship doesn't really match your idea of what it should be.

thats not true, im arguing it has too much because of its position in relation to the excel.

As I said above, I prefer to keep an open mind and not jump to conclusion that have nothing backing them. While it may have the same relation to the Excelsior as the Galaxy/Nebula (which doesn't actually have any confirmed relationship defined itself besides basic looks), it's just as likely to be a ship that simply looks similar because that was the style for the time.

starfleet just decided to abandon their styles and reuse an old style from over 50 years ago thats silly, the centaur is an entire class, not just a single kitbash of an old saucer laying around. they would have had to start an entire construction programme building blasts from the past. imagine a galaxy with excel nacelles or an intrep with connie deflector dish. tech isnt mix and match. the centaur looks completely e1 lineage.

Hey, don't look at me; I didn't write the tooltip that says it was developed during the war. TNG doesn't exactly stick to a strict design style, so nothing says they can't make a ship that looks like an earlier one.

its probably time for the agree to disagree, gg

Yeah, probably. Have we had any discussion that didn't end that way?

Heh, gg. Discussions are like some alternative to playing FO...

The discussion is to determine what we believe the stats for the Centaur should be. Your argument regarding those stats involves quoting those same stats.

It's circular reasoning.

"The sky is blue because it is blue."

My point is: SHOULD it have the "military vessel" passive, as it might not actually be a military vessel? In canon it was never specifically shown to be. It's as valid an opinion as anyone elses.

The FO ship type comes before the canon one because we know nothing about the canon Centaur, we were never given details on what its purpose is. It's a blank slate.

The stats quote was a reply to you asking where the military thing comes from, I din't feel like half-assing the quote and only getting the name.

EDIT: FO Excelsior loses, I've just tried and a Centaur won with 59% hull left.