I really don't understand why people bitch about the shotguns. Like, do people not understand that using a shotgun is a massive disadvantage in a game like battlefield? When you have huge, wide open maps with lots of distance that requires plenty of movement, any encounter that is not immediately within close vicinity of a shotgunner is already a lost encounter. There is absolutely no way of defending yourself if you start taking fire; no return fire, no suppressive fire, nothing. You are a sitting duck just hoping whoever is shooting at you will leave you alone. Being effective with a shotgun actually requires a tremendous amount of patience and a significantly different play style than other classes ("riding" cover and staying out of view to get the drop on opponents). In order to balance this out, if a shotgun cannot absolutely decimate at close range, then there is a problem. The player using a shotgun deserves any advantage given to him/her in that situation because they went through all of the trouble closing that distance between the enemy. They should arguably, unless they suck at aiming, never lose a close encounter.
Furthermore, the balance in this game will be designed around the flagship game mode, which is obviously conquest. In conquest, the shotguns are perfect and should not be tampered with. Obviously there are maps that benefit shotgunners more (like Argonne and Amiens) but that's nothing the person using a shotgun should feel guilty about. That is on the opponent to be more aware of the real dangers of a shotgun around every corner. It keeps the play dynamic changing with each map. This is no different than having to be more on your toes on that desert map (forgot the name) because of the snipers. If every map played the same, and you could plan for all enemy encounters in the same way, then the game would be boring as shit.
DO NOT CHANGE THE SHOTGUNS (or maybe just the model 10 hunter a little bit)