Yes, I didn't mean just a better than A grade, with no drawbacks.
But weapons that have low availability, and that you need to earn from doing high risk military missions, for instance, can be objectively better. They shouldn't be such that you get them just by spending more credits.
Still, for instance in Mount & Blade a balanced long-sword (the game uses the alternative name of the weapon with a banned b-word) can cost five times that of a perfect quality "regular" one, and a masterwork one is not only very rare to find, but cost something like 20 times as much. The difference in actual damage output and speed is maybe 5% and 10% at most, and probably less. These are vanity items, the best of the best. It would most likely be something for the utterly pimped sidewinder or eagle, more often than for the high end Python or Anaconda, where the cost would become astronomical.
Stull, it's good to have the option to go for over the top luxury
Precisely not. Simply making a weapon more expensive as the only drawback for its greater damage output turns it into a simple power progression. Plus, even if outrageously expensive to buy and maintain (a notion I would prefer not to see, either) it'd automatically become a PvP weapon of choice, as has shown for anything that is financially unviable to use in everyday NPC bounty hunting but technically a solid weapon of choice.
The suffixed weapons were fine the way they were (remember they were only removed due to technical problems with the stations and outfitting system, not due to balance issues), for example overcharged lasers did more damage at the expensive of greater power draw, greater heat and lower accuracy, overcharged multi-cannons had higher rate of fire but smaller magazines and would thus churn through ammo faster and have to reload more often.
