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.
This is a very difficult balance for Dice, snipers are one-shot-kills (headshots/sweetspot) and that is fundamentally a problem, against weapons that needs 4-5 bullets to kill, It always feel bad to be on the receiving end, when getting one-shotted.
It's the same problem with shotguns, I understand the game-mechanics, but it still feels 'stupid' to be one-shotted.
I personally feel that suppression should not really affect aiming, but getting hit, should still have some penalties. Having the ability to one-shot-kill at any distance is a very strong ability, especially in BF6 where sniping has been made a lot easier than i earlier titles (at least since BF1).
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.
