Battlefield 3 and 4 had suppression and it was nothing more than an annoyance. It did nothing to facilitate teamwork, or smart positioning for that matter.
If people were suppressed behind cover, it was far less likely they were going to peek the corner as soon as the suppressor stopped firing and instead wait to for the suppression to dissipate. If the suppression mechanic weren't present, the player behind cover could easily peak the cover as soon as the suppressing player stopped firing and secure the kill. This is more than an "annoyance", it is a measurable effect on gameplay.
It introduced unnecessary randomness to the game.
In BF3, when the suppression mechanic vastly increased bullet spread, I would agree with you. This is why I'm specifically calling for suppression that does NOT increase bullet spread. When it only impacts the recoil/sway of the gun (which are both controllable by the player) and not the bullet spread, the randomness is taken out of the equation. As you said, "controlling recoil or spread requires you to actually learn the specifics of the weapon". Suppression raises the skill ceiling because when mastering a weapon, instead of only having to learn the specifics of the gun while you aren't suppressed, you would also have to familiarize yourself with how that gun performs when you are suppressed and learn to react with the correct response that each situation calls for. Suppression under this system is not, as you describe, a "random multiplier"; it is a highly predictable increase to a weapon's recoil values. It would not alter the core of the weapon's recoil pattern, and only increase the magnitude of it. If you are unable to effectively combat a magnitudinal increase to a weapon's recoil, it is a skill issue and not a problem with randomness.
The idea that the game needs to "discourage" skill-based gameplay is the complete opposite of what I'd do.
A heavy suppression mechanic does not discourage skill based gameplay, it simply raises the skill floor by giving support players a way to meaningfully slow down the enemy team's advances through a deliberate and intentional expenditure of resources while also raises the skill ceiling through the ways previously discussed.
I'd instead make it easier for people to organize, by providing proper tools for players to actually work together.
The current level of health regeneration is the exact opposite of giving players the proper tools to work together. Right now, there is about a ~3-4 second window after a player takes damage in which a medic can drop them a bag and have the active healing actually effect them, before they passively heal up to full health on their own. Slowing down the passive health regeneration rate to the level suggested would increase this window by 10 seconds, giving a greater opportunity for medics to provide them with active healing. I agree with you that the 36 seconds to full health in BF3/4/1 is too slow for today's gaming environment, but 20 seconds is already nearly halving this value while still providing ample opportunities for active healing.
When it only impacts the recoil/sway of the gun (which are both controllable by the player) and not the bullet spread, the randomness is taken out of the equation.
This simply isn't true, because suppression isn't predictably applied before a fight, it can be applied at any time during the fight, even while you're already bursting your gun. I'd challenge you to try compensating not just recoil but also sway control, mid-burst. That's why it's not a skill-based mechanic. People can't properly respond to that, plain and simple.
A heavy suppression mechanic does not discourage skill based gameplay, it simply raises the skill floor by giving support players a way to meaningfully slow down the enemy team's advances through a deliberate and intentional expenditure of resources while also raises the skill ceiling through the ways previously discussed.
Sorry, but I reject the premise entirely. Deliberately shooting and missing your shots near an enemy barely requires any skill. Combine that with your own admission of "Suppression shifts the skill set away from gun play", and you're left with a system that actively reduces skill-based gameplay.
The current level of health regeneration is the exact opposite of giving players the proper tools to work together.
You're mixing things up. My last response was about suppression, not health regeneration. The quote you were addressing was not about health regeneration. The exact time it takes for health regeneration to kick in, or how long it takes to go back to full health, is in my opinion up for debate. Suppression on the other hand is a different story. Suppression in both Battlefield 3 and 4 were absolute garbage.
I'd challenge you to try compensating not just recoil but also sway control, mid-burst.
This utilizes the exact same skillset as keeping your red dot on a moving target. If the recoil pulls up harder, drag down harder, similar to how if the enemy you are aiming at moves to the left, you would drag to the left. This is a skill issue.
Combine that with your own admission of "Suppression shifts the skill set away from gun play", and you're left with a system that actively reduces skill-based gameplay.
You are implying that gunplay is the ONLY skill that exists in Battlefield. This is disingenuous. Emphasizing smart choice of engagements over gunplay isn't reducing or removing skill-based gameplay, it is shifting the focus from one skill set to another.
This utilizes the exact same skillset as keeping your red dot on a moving target.
No, it most certainly doesn't. Keeping your red dot on the target, is based on the preceding knowledge of where your target is at and where your target is going. This knowledge isn't gained instantly, it is limited by your reaction time.
Suppression can happen in an instant. There is no preceding knowledge of the exact moment you'll be suppressed. It certainly doesn't announce itself, so it's not possible to react. You can certainly adapt after the fact, but at that point, your aim has already been thrown off. At which point, it may cause you to lose the firefight.
Losing a firefight because a random bullet flies by, is no matter what kind of reason you may put forward, not a fun experience.
You are implying that gunplay is the ONLY skill that exists in Battlefield. This is disingenuous. Emphasizing smart choice of engagements over gunplay isn't reducing or removing skill-based gameplay, it is shifting the focus from one skill set to another.
This is entirely false as well. You're misrepresenting my argument.
My argument is that suppression, in practice, doesn't lead to smarter choices of engagements. My argument from the very beginning has been, that it introduces a random element to gunfights. Besides, it's not just shifting the emphasis, it's actively sabotaging gunplay in favor of whatever you perceive the advantages of suppression to be.
I think we've both had our chances to bring forward our arguments regarding this matter. Quite honestly, I don't think we're ever going to agree on this one. So let's agree to disagree.
Suppression can happen in an instant. There is no preceding knowledge of the exact moment you'll be suppressed. It certainly doesn't announce itself, so it's not possible to react. You can certainly adapt after the fact, but at that point, your aim has already been thrown off. At which point, it may cause you to lose the firefight.
Suppression, when done right, does not happen in an instant. Even in BF4 this was not the case. It was a gradual buildup to max suppression levels. IIRC, each bullet contributed 5% toward the maximum suppression threshold (LMGs suppressed more than this), and the effects of suppression scaled accordingly. If you were only 5% suppressed, your recoil would only be increased by 5% of what maximum levels of suppression would increase it by. This was absolutely predictable.
The biggest problem with suppression in BF3 was that it affected bullet spread, but I agree that it also built up too fast. This can be adjusted very easily though. IMO bullets from assault rifles, SMGs, and carbines should contribute 2% toward the suppression threshold, requiring 50 bullets to become fully suppressed. LMGs should contribute 5% toward the suppression threshold, requiring 20 bullets for a player to become fully suppressed. LMGs could also have access to a weapon attachment, lets say Tracer Rounds, that would cost attachment points and have the effect of doubling the outgoing suppression from the gun (bumping up the LMG's contribution toward the suppression threshold to 10%), but this would come at the cost of making the LMG user's projectiles more traceable.
I agree that we are on opposite sides of the equation here and we may never agree on this. And that's okay. I do appreciate you taking the time to explain your thought process and reasoning and engaging in this discussion.
