Here you see my current lazgun next to one the game is telling me is 77 points higher as far as quality, yet ALSO does 111 less damage per shot. Which one would you think is better?
As far as I’ve ever seen, damage is the MAIN stat in weapons, and everything else comes second. If you have a gun that does abnormally high damage, it is in your best interest to keep it and upgrade it. And yet the game keeps offering me gun far weaker than this gem I managed to find, and somehow claiming it’s better. I even have a transcendent weapon that is weaker than this, even with all it’s blessings and perks.
Base stats should be the main measure of how good a weapon is, not modifiers. And they need to adjust this to be reflected in the rating of the weapons themselves. Until then… think I’ll keep my low rating lazgun.
While damage is generally the most important stat, there’s other factors such as the burn stat on flamers, or charge rate for things like staves.
Rating is effectively just telling you the item’s budget, not its effective power.
EDIT: Also you’re comparing two totally different gun types.
Combat Rating is determined by the total rating of Modifiers, Blessings and Perks. Each weapon pattern also has specific starting base stats before any of those Modifiers, Blessings and Perks are taken into account, and some weapon patterns may perform better at certain tasks regardless of ratings. The base MG XII Lasgun pattern hits harder than the other base patterns, but it also has less base stability, more recoil and a slower rate of fire. So which weapon is better for you can be more subjective than which has a higher Combat Rating.
It seems like kind of a mistake to show weapons Combat Ratings because a lot of people are getting off put by knowing there’s always a better weapon out there to look for, but that ship has sailed.
The versatile gun shoots almost twice as fast, if you go on inspect you will see additional stats