^agreed

I'd just like to add that I'm Pro S-Class.

+1 vote against having an S rank

I think with non 5* items we should only include them if they are generally considered to be a viable option for tier 3 instead of 5star weapons. For example swiftstrike, Faust, winmillion. Don't think deconstructor would be worth putting in.

"I think with non 5* items we should only include them if they are generally considered to be a viable option for tier 3 instead of 5star weapons. For example swiftstrike, Faust, winmillion. Don't think deconstructor would be worth putting in."

Deconstructor is 4*, and therefore a T3 item. That means we should list it; and we have a good place for it. It's called the E class.

Since there's so little Battle Sprites, there's not much reason to list them. Unless you mean their Ultimates, then yeah that could be another thing to get to.

For weapons, that sounds pretty good, I've no argument there.

Armors...are more on the particular side, but I think it'd be better to lower the armor set requirement down from 5 sets to 3 sets since a lot of players just stick with BKC/Chaos for everything.

I also feel that the defensive armor set requirement should be dismissed since I wouldn't be too surprised if there are many people who haven't created a full set knowing they aren't as good as the specialized armors; I myself have only bits and pieces of defensive sets only for costume purposes. Maybe the requirement I'd like to enforce is to have a set of each damage type, though having pure normal isn't necessary.

This is also a little weak, but a lot of armor can be compared to each other by glancing at their stats (with the exception of Ancient set), so fair knowledge of how your own armor feels will allow you to compare it against another. But I honestly feel pretty iffy on this as well, so I think more ideas should be shared.

For shields, I'd just like to enforce the above here too; a shield of each damage type, but again having pure normal isn't necessary.

On the OP post questions:

Exactly how many items should be required to vote?

- 1/3 of a weapon type is fine, 3 armor sets of each damage type (pure normal unnecessary), and 3 shields of each damage type (pure normal unnecessary).

Should one be allowed to vote based on an overall item count or the amount of items one possesses in the relevant item type?

- As simple as the former sounds, I think the latter would be better. Gives off the idea that the person who's voting has extensively used weapons of that type. Kinda weak reason though, cause I don't bomb that much and I have many 5* bombs.

- Which items should count? 5* items only? 4* and 5* items?

- 4*s and 5*s should count since 4*s are only slightly weaker in some way vs. their 5* counterpart. But for a lot of armors, they don't branch off until they hit 5*, so maybe armors could be an exception to this.

Should the other limitation be the amount of played time or the amount of prestige one has and either way, how much time/prestige?

- I stand by prestige for reasons I mentioned earlier, but the amount I'm unsure about, though I'll also stand by 10k for the minimum.

I'm also still against multiple categories; just unnecessarily complicated. We should all just vote the weapon to a class.

Oh I see, then yeah that's completely 'aight. I retract what I said earlier then.

For now, everyone just needs to contribute to the topics in the OP. Considering the new guns have appeared on the test server, I'm not surprised it's gotten quiet. So thanks to that, everyone has mostly put this on the back burner for the time being so we can go express our opinions to make sure the weapons don't come out something like Sun Shards. Don't fret too much, there's a handful of people interested in this being completed, it'll just be a while before attention is fully shifted back over here.

The gunner update test server? That explains everything.
And yes, we will have to wait a bit for gun voting, definitely.
So while you are all playing with the big guns (oh dear...), I will still be working toward my Levi Blade in-game... xD

I am also going to go and rank all the swords that I have used... Not many, but I may as well see where I would put them. I guess I'll post it here too if its worth doing. I may also consult damage tables and swing length etc. And create a list based purely on damage, and another purely on DPS. I guess. That will give me plenty to do :D

That was fun, the guns, especially Magnus line, feels wonderful. You'll all love them if they go live in this state.

But yeah, let's do swords first since they won't be rebalanced anytime soon and they're pretty simple to rank. A month or two should be a sufficient amount of time to test out the new guns. After sufficient testing, we can rank them afterward.

...dat Iron Slug tho...it's definitely not sitting at the bottom of the gun list anymore, that's for sure.

Yes, while that first criteria does favor normal damage weapons only, you could say swap that for a total damage output - this would include specialized damage. This would then rank normal+special over normal over pure special (I think, correct me if I am wrong). Would that be more appropriate?

Because while a normal sword is theoretically the best kind of sword, a split normal/special sword has a much higher versatility in the end - it allows for extra damage against what it is specialized against, while also providing pretty good coverage against all else. This makes the most sense to me.

@OP? (is this even replying to the OP anymore?)
I am going to vote for the first form of weapon criteria - the total damage output I have put forth in this post, with enemy destruction, with crowd control.

I fear that the recent discussion has veered into an attempt to quantify the relative merits of swords. (And that was my fault, because I'm like that...) Quantification is far too ambitious, and it's not what this thread is about anyway. This thread is about people voting, semi-subjectively, and then averaging the votes. So here is an alternative plan for the criteria:

* Slimes: Rank the swords from best (A) to worst (E), based on how they would perform against slimes in slime-heavy levels: lichenous lairs, slime Tunnels, slime arenas, RJP, Compound 42, etc.
* Gremlins: Rank swords against gremlins in deconstruction zones, gremlin Tunnels, gremlin arenas, OCH, Compound 42, etc.
* Beasts: etc.
* Fiends: etc.
* Undead: etc.
* Constructs: etc.

These criteria are still more complicated than Midnight-Dj's. But they're simpler than what I proposed above, they're easy to explain, and they capture a lot of subtlety. For example, they know about the relative merits of different damage types. I consider crowd control to be important against fiends, but not against beasts. And this system would let me incorporate that insight into my rankings.

@Bopp
Theoretically a normal sword would be better because you wouldn't have to swap it out every level, and because it does the same damage to all enemy types (discounting resistances etc. You get the point)

EDIT: I just realized that I forgot to mention that yes, arsenal stations do nullify this.

As I may not have said, I can't really stick a criteria on these things - I still have to reach vanguard! But I still will help sort out everyone else votes :D
I am wondering if we should allow speculative voting... I mean, take all votes that come from criteria as actual votes, but then see what newish (say, have reached vanguard) think about the classings etc.

I believe I have now given my dollars worth to this post. This is good fun.

Welcome back, Krakob. I am exactly addressing the issue of how many categories each vote should have. I'm suggesting that there should be six, not three.

Midnight-Dj and Military-Lupin are suggesting that we rate each weapon in three ways: Overall utility, damage output, and crowd control. For example, a weapon with good utility, excellent damage, and bad crowd control might be rated BAE, right?

These are bad ways to rate items, because they ignore many important subtleties, including the entire issue of specialized damage. So I propose that there be six ratings per weapon: one against each monster family. (You could add a seventh rating for "other" -- Vanaduke.)

For example, the anti-beast rating would include damage against beasts, crowd control against beasts, and anything else that the voter considers important against beasts. Against beasts, I consider crowd control to be completely unimportant, single-target DPS to be moderately important, and multi-target DPS to be most important. So, if we were rating weapons together (which we're not), I might rate Dark Briar Barrage A, Final Flourish and Nitronome B, and Shivermist Buster E.

You could take this even further, giving two ratings (damage and crowd control) against each monster family, for a total of 12 ratings. But that is too many ratings in my opinion. For me, the six family ratings are very clear, easy to implement, and detailed enough to capture a lot of subtlety.

I came upon my system through the following thought process: Players on these forums often ask questions like "I'm having trouble with fiends. What's a good weapon?" Players standing at the arsenal station ask themselves, "What weapon should I bring to this level?" So I picked categories to address these questions.

Also, ideas such as "overall utility" and "maximum utility" could be computed from my rating scheme, by averaging or maximizing the six ratings. So my system might satisfy Midnight-Dj's and Military-Lupin's desire for an "overall utility" category. But it would also satisfy my need for a "maximum utility" category, which I consider more important, because I carry more than one weapon at a time.

I agree that six categories means a lot of voting, and maybe too much complexity. Rigging things to be "simple, but not too simple" is always difficult.

Your other issue, of the 2D-ness of the spreadsheet, is already ruined by the three-category system, right?

Here is a proposal that would mitigate both problems, while also promoting a sense of community: Each week, the community rates one weapon. So each weapon would have its own spreadsheet, and voting would be a 5-minute weekly task, that kept players talking about this project.

If that's too slow, then how about: Each week, the community rates one sword, one handgun, and one bomb (and one helmet/suit, and one shield?). That would take about 20 weeks, instead of multiple years.

Maybe you could give each weapon a score for how it performs against a certain type of monster (trojans/deadnaugts vs greavers vs mechaknights/thwackers vs zombies/slimes). That way you give the weapon a score based on how it performs against enemies with different attack/movement patterns, without letting damage type influence it that much?

also @bopp, Im thinking it might be better to work on one list at a time, maybe like pick 5 swords each week and rate them, and after a few weeks the full sword list would be completed. I think if you only rate one of each item type per week, it will be harder to vote according to your previous votes. for example in week 1 you may classify one sword as a C/B rank, and decide to give it a C rank, 20 weeks later you have to rate another borderline sword and may decide to give it a B rank, even though they are both comparable in strength, it would look like the latter sword is much better. I think if you rate all the swords first, then all the bombs, etc, ppl will be able to rate them more accurately. Doing it that way would also generate a complete list after a month or so, instead of completing all of the lists after 6 months simultaneously.

Plancker, I agree that voting on one item per week might make the votes really inconsistent. Also, it might take so long that the items change from under us. I mean, by the time we had them all rated, we'd have to go rate them again.

I was just trying to figure out a way to get people to vote a little bit at a time, so that they don't have to enter hundreds of ratings all at once. But you're right that my one-per-week idea was not great.