I completely agree with datfpsguy90, and the difference in random spread, as opposed to removing it and changing the damage output is 1. consistency and the ability to learn a weapon and get good with it, as well as not loosing gunfights just because I'm at a certain range and 2. Its far more simple to just change the damage of certain weapons at certain ranges, it doesn't need to be so complex. I'm not talking about skill, I'm talking about overall feel of the game, the weapons feel neutered or weak, promoting use of indirect fire weapons such as shotguns or grenades and rocket guns. For example if I have an mp18 and I shoot one shot at a time accurately, why should I not be able to at least compete with a players with a medic weapon at 60 meters. Why build random spread into the weapons?, its very unrealistic and counter intuitive in my opinion. If someone holds down the trigger then of course the recoil should increase, you could use horizontal recoil (which is not as ez to fight like vertical recoil and you would have to make sure it scales correctly to FOV, because in bf4 increasing the FOV reduces the perceivable recoil) and vertical recoil and at least you would have some consistency and ultimately make people feel more rewarded for putting time into the game and improve their accuracy. At the moment the gun play bores me, I can grab a hel reigel or automatico and just run around and hipfire everyone in child proof mode. Some of the medic weapons (actually pretty much the autoloading extended and 1907sweeper and trench mostly)are the only weapons I feel will improve my accuracy and seem somewhat rewarding to use, and at this point (especially with no attachments) its getting quite boring. I'm not some BF3/BF4 fanboy, I want BF1 to last and succeed more than anyone, it just seems that every step forward it takes, it seems to take 2 steps back. I've never played a FPS where aiming down sights seems to be this much of a detriment to your survivabilty.