Why would there need to be an aim or suppression penalty to begin with?
It would mean that the person who shoots first always has the advantage instead of the person who aims, burst, tracks or chooses their engagements better. Suppression and flinch penalties reward people for bad aim or bad engagements.
Presumably you had an automatic gun that did equal or less than 25 damage per shot, or you wouldn't have been able to make 3 headshots without killing your opponent. At 30 meters you'd have a pretty significant advantage over the sniper, you shoot faster and are punished less severely for missing a single shot. Yet you failed at landing that last bullet granting you the kill, before the sniper could return fire.
I can't tell you why you were killed first, but the lesson here is that an advantage doesn't guarantee a kill, it simply makes it more likely.
So just because you got killed, doesn't necessarily mean that there's something wrong with the game. That said, there are couple of other fixes that I'd suggest:
I think that point 1 would be a better way to solve the issue, rather than relying on flinch or suppression. You made 3 headshots, so I think the game should reward that.
Points 2, 3 and 4 wouldn't necessarily change anything at 30 meters, but it would make snipers less powerful outside of the range of other weapons.
There should be some flinch/forced sway at the very least...as that would be more realistic. We already have bullet drop(which actually could use a little fine tuning tbh), but I don't see it as a super game breaking problem
Battlefield is not realistic, nor should it try to be. If you want to convince me why flinch or suppression is good, then please explain from a gameplay perspective, what's so fun about having your aim thrown off every time you're in a firefight? The way a firefight works is fundamental to a first person shooter game. If you screw up those fundamentals, it's absolutely a game breaking problem.
If it wasn't realistic, we wouldn't have bullet drop to take into account over distances in the game. And having your aim thrown off by bullets snapping by you or hitting the cover right in front of you would be 100% normal. A bit of flinch would be alright, and more natural. I don't think you're comprehending what I'm saying. I'm not saying just the bullets whizzing by shouldn't do it, but the ones hitting the cover as you're trying to aim definitely should...that's all part of a firefight.
You're making a flawed argument. Arcade games can have realistic elements, but they deliberately choose what to include and what to exclude.
Besides, the bullet drop in this game isn't even that realistic. It's not affected by wind, temperature, humidity, momentum and the air density is a static value. Do you perhaps think we have the coriolis effect to account for?
I understand precisely what you're saying and I'm saying that I'm not convinced that it's a good thing. I don't think it should be part of a firefight. I'd like firefights to be a competition between players using skill-based mechanics. Spread and recoil can be dealt with, but you can't exactly counteract flinching.
Tell me you have never played a BF game before with out telling me you haven't... Suppression was ALWAYS a thing in BF games. They took it out in BF6 for some dumb reason but you still get points for it even tho suppression no longer exists...
Don't make me laugh. You're lying so hard it's just funny. I know exactly which Battlefield games did and did not have suppression. It hasn't always been a thing.
Oh and in case you didn't know, Battlefield 6 has suppression. It's just that it affects health regeneration instead of introducing aim penalties.
