Demanding that you be able to fire back effectively when suppressed pretty much ignores and invalidates the whole point of suppression. The removal of recoil from suppression simply inflates the value of the wrong kind of skill (ability to aim quickly and accurately) in a situation where the ability should not be relevant.
Maybe the "whole point of suppression" is not suited for this game, then. What is the "right kind of skill" that you want to value? Holding down left click? Keep in mind that suppression mechanics also apply in a direct gunfight, so whoever fires the first shot gets a huge advantage even if their aim is garbage.
#1: I would hate to play a game where blindly spamming bullets everywhere has a tactical advantage. A player who holds down the trigger without aiming at anyone deserves to get their head blown off by someone who can actually land shots.
In my opinion, suppression is already too strong and handled poorly. Suppression is a tactical option, sure, but it's also a consolation prize for missing your shot. Its implementation is flawed too. The extreme sway and recoil increase makes the suppressed player unable to control their gun to the same extent as the other player. This means that player skill doesn't matter as much when you're suppressed.
I'd be able to get behind a primarily visual effect like in Ins2, but randomizing someone's aim because the shitter on the other team missed a few times is inexcusable. In Ins2, tactical missing was handled well. Since most of the blur effect was in peripheral vision, it wouldn't actually hinder you if someone missed you in a straight-up gunfight. If someone shoots at you from an unknown location, they have an advantage because you will struggle to acquire the target. On the other hand, if you whiff a few shots on someone you have the drop on, the suppression effect alerts them to take cover or return fire. Suppressing an angle actually worked in Ins2; you only need to let a player know there's lead flying over their head to keep them down because bullets actually kill people in Ins2.
#2: If you want to get technical, the only unrealistic part of this scenario is when your gun turns off because you're too close to where the enemy reinforcements will arrive. But realism is overrated, so I've got some gameplay suggestions instead. A few seconds of spawn invulnerability would solve 99% of spawn camping problems. This would have the added benefit of being able to move restricted areas further back. This would let you take alternative routes to the objective on offense, opening up the potential for flanking tactics. And on defense, you could be a little proactive instead of sitting on the point waiting for enemies to come to you because you're not allowed to move more than 15 feet past the objective. Areas with LOS to spawn should still be restricted, of course.
#3: It's a high-risk/high-reward tactic. If they put one guy on B and one guy on C, they now have to cap A with 2 players down. If you send one player to check B and C, that's 2 free kills. It's a bit cheesy, but you can counter the strat by defending the objective normally and winning because you have a man advantage.
Anything would be better than reflection. One time the other day a teammate started shooting an enemy team gun he picked up behind me and I turned and shot him in the face with a shotgun. Even though I had never even sneezed on a teammate in that match, I instantly died.
Please don't force me to use the vault mechanic. At minimum, I want a separate keybind for jump so I stop accidentally vaulting when I try to jump up something. Nerfing jump entries is fine (I've never seen someone do this successfully, but you could increase ADS time after jumping to solve the problem), but please don't require me to use a pile of bugs and scripted animation that doesn't even take me where I want to go.