Tag_N_Bag, for what it's worth I don't think you sound trolly and agree wholeheartedly that realism should be a far, far lower priority than fun.
I'm not against the rock-paper-scissors philosophy, but agree with divVerent that it's possible to do much better. Counters should never be reduced to which weapon is equipped, but rather any weapon can outperform any other if used in a situation more appropriate for it. In other words, instead of having a rock weapon, a paper weapon, and a scissors weapon, each pair has a relationship like the sniper rifle and shotgun: each is the hardest counter to the other, with the direction of the relationship being context sensitive. One really big thing I like in particular about this game is that there's no BFG or Redeemer, and the community seems interested in closing the desirability gap between the Nex and the other weapons.
I think in terms of niches in the ecosystem which weapons fill, and within any one of these roles each weapon should be as close to equally popular, desirable, and available as we can make them. Two niches I'm particularly interested in having the starting weapons fill, in addition to the movement tool, are the close defensive weapon and the general-purpose workhorse. They could be the same weapon, or different weapons. I think the Shotgun can easily become that, sorta like a diet version of Halo's original über-pistol but short-ranged instead of long-ranged. I know that's a totally different type of game but I think the idea fits the arena game well. Questioning the weak spawning weapon tradition seems to me a logical progression from dropping the superweapon tradition. IMO perfect weapon balance means you feel like you earned your frags and your opponents earned theirs, partly by using the right tool the right way, never that it's because one of you just spawned or just picked up the nuke.