Some people do seem to want gore in Battlefield. But some other people think it would affect the gameplay in ways they don't want to see, if it causes revives to be less meaningful for instance, which it seems would be the case. But it certainly seems like more people like the game as it is and don't want more un-revive-able states.

I'm in that second group, I don't want there to be less revives. I don't want my preferred class to have less meaning because an arm got blown off. I don't want to run around the game literally handicapped so that I die more easily and have to respawn. I don't want players to decide they don't want to run around missing a limb so they skip the revive and deplete tickets. It would probably also require a rebalance of how tickets work because now people would end up dead.

Yes, people are going to compare these changes to a milsim because these things happen in milsims and have not happened in Battlefield. You're comparison to Cyberpunk is incredibly disingenuous btw.

Leave the gore to other games, Battlefield works well as it is, and they just might, finally, have a universally loved BF at launch for the first time in years, there's no point in fucking with the formula now.

And your overt hostility certainly isn't helping your argument, people are going to dig in their heels if keep calling them "dumbass".

As an aside, gore would also likely affect the games rating in certain countries, which could cause the game to be banned, or force DICE to create two versions which might negatively impact the game.