The weapon ratings below were derived from a formula that takes into account weapon damage, accuracy, spread, player health (time-to-kill), fire rate, and ammunition count. The goal being to provide a simple reference for newer players who are having issues deciding on a weapon. Obviously individual skill is impossible to account for - as is personal preference (face it, some people do better with a poor gun than a great gun just because it feels right to them, it's an odd thing but it happens all the time). Other factors such as distance to target are also unpredictable variables - a shotgun will obviously have a higher effectiveness rating at close range than at long range. Dont take these ratings as a definite "this gun is better than that gun" - the ratings are based on hard data, but those individual factors that cannot be accounted for have as much impact as the true stats of the weapons do.

Here's the list. 1.0 equates to extremely high effectiveness, 5.0 equates to extremely low effectiveness

Assault Rifles
Gerund: 1.0
Euston: 1.5
Rockstedi: 2.5
Rhett: 3.0
FRKN-3K: 4.5

Submachine Guns
Bulpdaun: 2.0
Kross: 2.0
Carb-9: 4.0
Tampa: 4.5
Galactic: 5.0

Machineguns
Chinzor: 3.0
Maximus: 5.0
Gotlung: 4.5

Grenade Launchers
Lobster: 3.5
EZ-Nade: 5.0

Light Rifles
Drognav: 1.5
Barnett: 2.5

Shotguns
Hjammerdeim: 3.0
Mossington: 3.5

Sidearms
Sea Eagle: 3.0
Ritchie: 3.5
Belgo: 4.0
Kalt: 4.5
Tokmak: 5.0






For those interested in more raw data, here's the full chart:
DPS Performance TTK Rating
------------------------
Kalt: 181.5 181.5 1.377 7
Sea Eagle: 207.1 258.8 0.965 5
Tokmak: 182.0 113.7 2.198 10
Ritchie: 241.3 402.1 0.621 3
Belgo: 272.7 170.4 1.467 7

Kross: 272.7 227.2 1.100 5
Galactic: 247.5 137.5 1.818 9
Bulpdaun: 303.0 378.7 0.660 3
Carb-9: 348.45 174.2 1.435 7
Tampa: 333.3 151.5 1.650 8

Barnett: 54.1 541.0 0.462 2
Drognav: 241.3 2413.0 0.103 1

Gerund: 300.0 1500.0 0.166 1
Euston: 378.7 473.3 0.528 2
Rhett: 320.0 213.3 1.172 6
Rockstedi: 204.3 510.75 0.489 2
FRKN-3K: 100.0 250.0 1.000 5

Mossington: 220.0 55.0 4.545 4
Hjammerdeim: 128.0 51.2 4.882 6

Gotlung: 363.6 90.9 2.750 8
Chinzor: 363.6 129.8 1.926 5
Maximus: 32 26.6 9.398 7

EZ-Nade: 340.5 170.2 1.468 7
Lobster: 36.7 367.0 0.681 3

Your simplified rating saying which weapons are "best" is purely subjective.

After experimenting a lot with every SMG, I decided that the Galactic (rated by you as one of the worst guns in the game) was the one which best suits my playstyle, and I'm quite effective with it.

Also, most Heavy players I've seen swear by the Maximus in favour of the Chinzor (which you rated the other way around), and I'd say for pure combat-effectiveness, BOTH the MGs I've used are more powerful than SMGs at ANY range. (didn't play with the Gottlung much before switching back to a Light body)

EDIT: Also worth mentioning - I prefer most SMGs over ANY AR, even though the ARs have been consistently rated as better by you.

Actually, the ratings are objective - personal preference is the subjective side of weapon performance. As I said, even if a particular weapon is better in every way according to hard numbers, other factors still apply. A lot of players seem to do well with the Galactic - personally I find it far too inaccurate and lacking the stopping power to win up close confrontations, and the numbers support that.

On the machineguns... I cant ever seem to get consistent results with the maximus. The fire rate is too low to compensate for the weapon's spread, lucky headshots with it are great but I like the more consistent handling of the chinzor and gottlung (though the gottlung's spinup time makes it far more difficult to use).

I did rate the AR's as consistently better than SMGs... but again, that's only by hard numbers. I personally hate most assault rifles here - the only one I really like is the rockstedi, which you'll notice didnt end up very high on ratings either. Again it's an issue of hard data vs personal preference.

According to YOUR numbers, several commonly-used weapons people consider some of the best are rated among the worst.

How did you evaluate which stats are worth how much on your scale? Because THAT decision alone makes any simplification to a single number defining "overall effectiveness" a totally subjective figure.

I can't help but say it's an OVERsimplification to the point of fail.

Sorry, but good idea, doesn't work.

The truth; this man speaks it.

It's all based on damage-per-second dealt by each weapon, combined with the weapon's accuracy, vs. the average amount of health of an enemy target. Additional modifications to the results were made based on max ammunition capacity per clip (higher ammo weapons tend to be slightly more effective especially when multiple enemies are taken into consideration, plus they allow for more spray), refire rate (a low refire weapon like a sniper rifle is much more difficult to use at average distance than a high refire weapon like an SMG or assault rifle), and burst damage capability (damage per shot to health ratio). The ratings here only account for average (medium) distance to targets, rather than extreme close or extreme long distances, and ultimately come down to how quickly each weapon is able to kill a target at that distance given a user with average aim.

You also need to keep in mind that the entire chart is relational - it's not saying that the gerund is the best weapon in all situations, or that the tokmak is the worst, but rather that at medium range from the opponent, when used by a player that has decent (average) aiming ability, the Gerund will simply get the kill more quickly and more reliably than the tokmak will.

As I said, the numbers you're using are combining a series of unrelated variables into a single number - which requires you to make assumptions on how important each individual statistic is to the person using the weapon.

Do you see why I'm saying it's subjective and not objective yet?

Some people will need a high-accuracy, high-stability weapon to be able to hit consistently at mid-range, or possibly even short range - others will be able to land a decent number of shots on target with a less accurate and stable weapon, even at long range. It's not necessarily related to skill, either - some people are better at spray-and-pray after rushing in, others will do better with burst-fire, some can mix it up, but aren't quite as good at either extreme - all three of these examples could be equally skilled at shooting, but would require VERY different weapons with VERY different stats.

You can't even say "when used by a player with decent (average) aiming ability" without introducing a personal bias - what do you consider more important: precision on that first shot, recoil control, stability when tracking the target? That gives the simple concept of "player accuracy" three variables which can STRONGLY affect how a person performs with different weapons.