Like others, I think the correct course of action is to tweak the revive system. I would like to know just how specific the DEV's can get with what kills and what wounds. I.E. We know that the game can distinguish between a headshot / knife wound, which kills, and a regular chest gunshot which only wounds. Can the game also make the same distinction for a Tank Round? a JDAM? What about certain calibres of small arms? Or the number of rounds impacting the player?

I think the DEV's should strive a little bit (and only a little bit) towards increased realism in the revive system. By this I mean that we should be aiming to make any weapon that would, in real life, be instantly fatal to an infantryman, fatal also in PR. While any weapon that would be likely to only wound (even morally), can then be revivable. As an example, I think that Headshots, Tank and other Vehicular weapons, High Explosives, and Post wounded grenades should all be instantly fatal. meanwhile small arms, regular grenades, and even machine guns will all merely wound.

It would be nice if we could go a step further and have it so that small arms become fatal if you are shot enough times, that is, if you are shot 3 times in the chest with an M4 right now, you will be critically wounded, but if the soldier then comes up to your corpse and shoots you again, you are no longer revivable. I suspect this is beyond the ability of the engine as it does not seem to register damage to corpses. Then again, who knows... The final (and most controversial) suggestion would be to make it so that both Headshots AND Torso shots are fatal. Even with modern body armor, I thinks it's safe to say that any soldier who takes enough rounds to his chest to put him down, is likely not going to get back up any time soon, if ever. By comparison, soldiers are much more likely to be able to continue fighting after being shot in the arm or leg. This might be a suitable middle ground between those who advocate keeping Revival and those who argue it should be removed completely. The question remains, however, would this compromise make everybody happy, or everyone even madder?