This is specifically for TF2, but it can be reasonably applied to other games and still function

Over my years of seeing absolute fuçking garbage item suggestions, I've slowly built up and refined some criteria I believe are necessary for a weapon to be good in TF2

I am still refining these criteria to this day, and wish to make the best and most applicable system (at least for TF2) that can be reasonably made

Criticism without advice isn't criticism, it's complaining. This is a way I can give constructive criticism and still shít on bad weapon ideas

I believe that all good TF2 weapons fit at least these 3 criteria:
> The weapon has a unique attribute
> The weapon fits a useful niche
> The weapon competes with stock

What do these mean? Well, it's simple:
1- For an item to have a unique attribute, it must have either some positive unique to the equipped slot or have the largest bonus for that attribute in a given slot, both if you're a go-getter

> Example: The Direct Hit is the only soldier primary with a damage bonus, with minicrit on airborne targets, and holds the fastest projectile speed bonus for all rocket launchers

* Unique downsides are encouraged, but far less important than downsides that contribute to fitting a niche

2- For an item to fit a useful niche, it most do something stock nor any other weapon in that equip slot does, AND that thing must be of use to the class. It must also do this at the cost of fitting other niches

> Example: The direct hit has great damage, but almost no splash-radius. This makes it considerably easier to take out single targets, but nearly impossible to wipe out an entire group. The direct hit gives up multi-target damage to gain high single-target damage, effectively trading one niche for another

3- For an item to compete with stock it must be about, if not slightly less useful than stock, on average. Not an upgrade, nor a downgrade, but a sidegrade

> Example: The direct hit is an interesting case, as it seems people can't come to a consensus on how good it is. Some people swear up and down that it's worse than stock, others say it's a direct upgrade, and some sit in the middle relay: "it's a sidegrade"

This is your ultimate goal when making a weapon. If no one can solidly agree if your weapon is an upgrade or downgrade, there's a very good chance it's a sidegrade

---

It's a bit of a diçk move to proclaim something's worth and then not test it, so here's an item I through of while writing this when ran through the wringer

Level 1820 explosive ammunition
Positives:
> Fires small explosive projectiles
> 150% damage bonus

Negatives:
> Projectiles are affected by gravity
> 75% Slower firing speed

Info:
> Explosions have a radius of 10hu
> Projectiles have velocity of 1000hu/s
> Projectiles have a 1 second fuse
> Projectiles have a natural 3° random spread in any direction
> Projectiles can't be reflected, but can be deleted by a short-circuit ball

Desc: Sometimes regular bullets don't cut it. Sometimes you need something just a bit more explosive

Both of the Fulminating Fracker's positive attributes are unique, it gives heavy some area denial at the expense of less bullets fired, and even with slightly higher damage than stock the higher difficulty in aiming and partially kneecapped range brings it down to competition with stock

Is it a perfect weapon? Probably not, but I'd say it's pretty good for something whipped up in ~10 minutes

---

I fully admit that this isn't a perfect system, and that it's very possible someone could make a weapon that hits all 3 criteria yet still sucks. I'm open to CONSTRUCTIVE criticism on the topic, but it actually has to be constructive; Do not say it's bad without elaborating as I will ignore you, even if you start elaborating as to why at a different time

But for now, I think it's good enough
Now stop making bad weapons already