I actually think suppression needs to be seriously looked at in regards to the way it upsets your aim for you. Having your weapon jerked around by incoming fire seems to me to be both ridiculous and annoying. It seems to be forcing a kind of 'flinch' response from the player to prevent you returning fire, but I think it's unnecessary, as with a proper suppression mechanic, this flinch, or fear response, should be something that I myself initiate in order to survive.
Let me try and explain. At the moment, say I'm aiming out of a window. A machine gun opens fire in my direction but doesn't hit me. Now, I know I am under fire, and in danger, but I remain at the window. I am taking a calculated risk that the machine gunner is laying down fire but isn't necessarily aiming directly at me.
The suppression mechanic kicks in. It jerks my aim around making it impossible to return accurate fire, as well as blurring my vision and inducing bullet cracks. Now, sorry, but this seems silly to me. The game is forcing me to flinch, as if to say "You are under fire! Quick, experience
fear!". It feels very forced to me, forbidding me to return fire simply because the game dictates that I should be suppressed, and flinching and jerking gun movement is somehow a symptom of that.
But the thing is, I wasn't scared. I remained at the window for a reason. I was taking a calculated risk. Yet I am still at the mercy of a game mechanic which is dictating that I should be a flinching, nervous mess, unable to hold my gun straight, when in reality, I had realised the danger wasn't immediate and was preparing to calmly line up a return shot.
Instead, Mormegil and teemu92 have summed up what I think should happen...
Jeez, am I the only guy who gets suppressed while on windows by automatic fire?
When the bullets stat hitting the window frame, or punching through the wall, I typically get out of Dodge.
Yeah i agree, when i last played darkest hour the suppression was insane, it actually made me want to jump to prone instantly
...I think the game should suppress you by trying to influence that fear in the first place, not by arbitrarily deciding when you are scared and affecting your aim negatively. I think the effects of incoming bullets should be modelled by loud cracking and ricochet sounds, dust and smoke effects, blurred vision and flashes. Make it feel like someone is firing 800 rounds a minute at you from a machine gun. The suppression then happens naturally - when the world around me starts to explode and turn to hell, I naturally seek cover, stay away from the window, and can't fire back from the virtue of the fact that I'm cowering behind overturned furniture crying.
HOWEVER - if I do decide to take the risk to fire back, then I should be able to. If I calculate the risk, realise the machine gun is firing blind, or that he doesn't know I'm there, I might decide to lean out and take a shot back. At that point, I have overcome the fear, and therefore, having the gun jerked around to indicate "more fear" is pointless. By all means, have suppression affect the things that would make shooting harder by association - perhaps make the breathing quicker so you cant hold your breath for a steady shot, as what happens when you try shooting while tired. But don't just grab the muzzle of the gun and throw it around the screen as if to demand that you feel fear.
In short, the inability to return effective fire should come as the natural consequence of a suppression mechanic that induces fear and forces you to take action to get away from incoming fire. It should not arbitrarily upset your aim simply because someone is firing at you, as this prevents any sort of return fire once the MG opens up. As it stands, it feels like a machine gunner gets rewarded simply for holding the trigger down, rather than making sure his suppressing fire is well coordinated.
