Caldwell, you haven't read most of my thoughts in this thread and it shows. You also haven't submitted anything of worth, but I will respond nonetheless.
"Clearly I think at least anyway you 'Ballistic boys' are not seeing the game as I see it or dare I say others too.... "
Do you find the current firearm mechanics acceptable? If not, then we have something in common. If you do, then you are naive and inexperienced when it comes to musket games in general and are doing more harm than good by neglecting a much need d fix to this core element of Holdfast. I have explained why I feel this way many times and you didn't read and respond to my comments then and I see you still haven't done so now.
It's egocentric and ignorant of you to say "others too." I haven't taken a poll of the thousands of players who have clocked significant hours into the game and neither have you. I will tell you what we do know. There are more than a couple threads on this forum and on the steam discussion forums asking for improved musket accuracy and the overwhelming response has been positive in favor for a rehaul. The largest of these discussions is my post on steam which at the moment has over 115 replies, the vast majority agreeing that a fix is necessary. It's more likely that a person with strong feelings AGAINST a change would post than someone who simply agrees with what I and others said and moves on. With that in mind, the few people that have attempted, in futility (with baseless points that you can read for yourself), to argue against the rehaul are drowned out by players' support for this change across all posts asking for it. And in my nearly 30 hours of gametime, I have yet to finish a match in which someone DOESN'T comment on the broken firearms and musket accuracy. However, that's more personal experience than the multiple discussions which you can freely scroll through at any time, here, and on the steam forums.
"However you seem blinded by stats and intolerant of opposing views to your vision of the game."
Blinded by statistics? What statistics have you put forth and for what reason? It seems you are talking about yourself, avoiding the numbers because it would for historical and atmospheric purposes destroy an argument for the current mechanics. Gameplay-wise, you conveniently and willfully ignore the musket spread numbers (which have been confirmed by crochunter) because a rehaul, similar to what has been proposed above, would be a direct fix to an issue nearly everyone with common sense and/or critical thinking can identify.
No one is intolerant to opposing views if you can fully support them with a realistic and gameplay argument. The problem with you "non-ballistic boys" is that you first attempt to play at the realism argument for a bit. Trying to tug and pull at facts supporting real musket accuracy numbers. Then you attempt to say that perfectly real muskets would break the game. Then you say that the developers intended for the game to be an arcade. Never is there any reasonable argument in how a balance between real musket spreads and the currently abhorrent nerf guns would not be beneficial realistically or practically for Holdfast.
The developers have stated they want to find a "proper balance between realism and gameplay." There is currently no mechanic in the game that remotely leans to the realism side. At the moment, Holdfast is, for all practical purposes, an mini arcade game with napoleonic warfare inspiration. They also stated they were looking to work with the community in early access to find that ideal balance. And here we are, the "ballistic boys" trying to get it right and suggest ideas to fix the problem the useless alpha testers were too blinded and inexperienced to notice. In contrast, you are here offering no valuable input and merely complaining about us using the forums and discussion boards as they should be used, to help the developers understand what they got wrong, why, and how they can fix it.
I have already answered others that foolishly use extremes as a way to argue. No one here wants perfect precision at 100m, 200m as you say. Have you bothered to read any of my previous posts? I believe I said negligible spread at 20m, few meter spread at 50-60m and a gradual increase to 100m and beyond. I also answered how it would affect gameplay. It seems you don't read what doesn't suit you, which is very sad considering you ignore potential points that we may agree on and that may prove beneficial to discuss. The better ballistics would make "quick to learn, difficult to master," a reality, because more realistic, tighter spreads would have players adjusting their aim at each distance according to the spread and drop to increase their chance of scoring a hit. They can practice this because aiming would be more skill reliant and less pure luck past 8 meters. Leading your targets becomes feasible. I am repeating myself at this point. You can scroll up and see that I've already made this case a few responses back, and you simply chose to ignore it.
At this point you are doing more harm than good if you simply justify, without reason, the current firearm mechanics by pointing to the developers who, have stated themselves, are actually looking for feedback on achieving a good gameplay-realism balance. I suggest you read the last 10 or so posts before replying to understand why, to me, you seem so foolish in your posts.