Originally Posted by Tippy
Also Moo, @ you saying "that's actually what happens". This is another example of the tiny amount of feeble excuses people trying to put out for suppression, and I found the perfect post which sums up the answer to that:
This guy isn't 100% correct, suppression as a concept DOES exist but it is aimed at forcing people to stay behind cover in fear
of getting shot if they leave cover.
I'll repeat that, In fear
of getting shot.
Nobody said what would happen if they left cover anyway and shot back - this is where DICE comes in and says "aha! But your eyes will go blurry, your horizontal and vertical recoil will triple, your bullets will bend away from where you're aiming!"
Sorry but NO.
That is NOT
DICE completely and utterly failed to understand the actual meaning of suppression, and why it would never work in a video game where players rarely care far less about dying and therefore feel no "fear".
I can't believe people still try to defend justify suppression
Jeeze, you're really passionate about not having suppression.
So the visual blur was something DICE added in, but otherwise, you wouldn't know you were being suppressed. If there wasn't some sort of visual cue, you would pop your silly little head out of cover and get killed. You seem to do this regardless according to your earlier post.
Of course, if they didn't add the visual blur and increased bullet spread, there would be no point to the suppression mechanic at all, but that's one less thing to encourage teamwork. Between real life and the game, suppression achieves the same outcome with different methods, which is to prevent someone from coming out of cover. It's not DICE's fault if people use the suppression mechanic the wrong way, because for those who do use it the right way, it's really helpful and great feature. I can't tell you how many times I've come up against an enemy (or enemies) with positional advantage over me and the only way I could go further is through suppressive fire.