Battlefield 6 status: server issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours

The graph below depicts the number of Battlefield 6 reports received over the last 24 hours by time of day. When the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line, an outage is determined.

Most Reported Problems

The following are the most recent problems reported by Battlefield 6 users through our website.

• Sign in (43%)
• Online Play (28%)
• Glitches (14%)
• Game Crash (8%)
• Matchmaking (7%)
• Hacking / Cheating (0%)

Live Outage Map

The most recent Battlefield 6 outage reports came from the following cities:

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Persan	Sign in	18 hours ago
Metz	Sign in	18 hours ago
Lyon	Matchmaking	1 day ago
Aubais	Online Play	3 days ago
Toulouse	Glitches	4 days ago
Seysses	Sign in	4 days ago

Full Outage Map

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

Battlefield 6 Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  AlliN When Playing (@Allin_Playing) reported 4 minutes ago

  @EndersFPS @BattleNonSense @Battlefield You're not wrong, but I would say now they are a total norm and a good, close game is an outlier strongly heading into statistical error territory.

• 
  Golgothic_TTV 🇫🇷 🇨🇭 (@golgothic99) reported 8 minutes ago

  @jstubbles @Battlefield Half of these issues could have been fixed after the alpha last year in May since I gave them my feedback. I think more than a year is enough for at least a full rework of one of the 3 main areas of gameplay

• 
  Mako (@xMako__) reported 9 minutes ago

  @carreraluu @BrokenMachine @BattlefieldComm I was having same issues. Come to find out my CPU was bottlenecked badly and doesn’t perform good on any big games. So had to upgrade CPU.

• 
  DJ North (@KarmaKarhu) reported 10 minutes ago

  @Telfey @BattlefieldComm Rush is only available in Tsuru Reef in Europe. What the hell are they smoking, asbestos? I had no problems finding matches in any mode, now I get 12 v 3 and 8 v 10 lobbies constantly and NO king of the hill available in custom search.

• 
  DeadSpacedOut (@DeadSpacedOut) reported 12 minutes ago

  @Battlefield The only good classes in this game, quite frankly. I would say we could really use a class rebalance, but there's a ton of smaller fundamental issues that this game really has that sadly ensures that it'll never be great like many past Battlefield Games are... DICE, pls fix.

• 
  EMJ (@emj_inc) reported 20 minutes ago

  @iranopessimist @calvinfroedge the issue has already been settled on the battlefield. we dropped thousands of munitions, armed separatist groups in Iraq. Iran vaporized the separatists, withstood the aerial bombardment and are stronger than when the war began

• 
  kirito _4kirigaya (@K4kirigaya) reported 22 minutes ago

  @golgothic99 @Battlefield I bet the TTK and TTD will be the next big thing either during season 5 or for season 6. It sucks we have to wait a whole year after launch and especially if it will suck and we would have to wait another year for them to fix that.

• 
  keyion (@KEYIONNN) reported 22 minutes ago

  @EA_DICE it's hard not to agree with many of my points. I genuinely enjoy @Battlefield 6 and want it to succeed even more, but right now it feels like the community is dealing with the same issue after issue while waiting for meaningful improvements:

• 
  Chris from there (@Octo7274) reported 24 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm yea, uninstalled again after new season with same old problems plus random crashing, gonna use the space for something that is actually fun, **** you and your game🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕

• 
  Martian (@Marshen_) reported 25 minutes ago

  @BattleNonSense @Battlefield BFV? The one game where they tried to re-emphasize teamwork and objective play? Also wasn't one of your biggest problems with BF3/4 that they killed team/obj play in favour of "ego shooter" as you liked calling those games?

• 
  tacticalshooter_UK (@thetacticalGB) reported 28 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm Get the middle east company to fix it

• 
  Terri Green (@TerriGreenUSA) reported 32 minutes ago

  We don’t win the battle here, you can’t, can’t fight. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world,” John 18. “If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would” – what? – “fight.” 2020 Clarity: Reflecting on God’s Goodness in the Last Year — John MacArthur // January 17, 2021 Oh, guess what? We don’t win down here, we lose. You ready for that? Oh, you were a post-millennialist, you thought we were just going to go waltzing into the kingdom if you took over the world? No, we lose here – get it. It killed Jesus. It killed all the apostles. We’re all going to be persecuted. “If any man come after Me, let him” – what? – “deny himself.” Garbage of prosperity gospel. No, we don’t win down here. You ready for that? Just to clear the air, I love this clarity. We don’t win. We lose on this battlefield, but we win on the big one, the eternal one. If the new administration supports religious freedom, get ready; persecution will be ramped up because the more supportive they are of the devil’s lies, the less they’re going to tolerate the truth of Scripture. We condemn every lie, and we call every person to this: there’s one true God, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. You’ll have no other gods before Me.” Right? There’s salvation in one name and one name only: that’s Jesus Christ. We will proclaim the exclusivity of the gospel, the unique revelation authority of Scripture. We’re not going to lobby for freedom of religion. What kind of nonsense is that? We are in the world to expose all those lies as lies. So this is just part of what’s been on my mind. Oh, so many things. Well, I’m not going anywhere, so there’s always next week. But John – I really did intend to get a little further than this – but John 15, just read a couple of verses here. Our Lord talks to the disciples, chapter 15, verse 19. Verse 19 – well, verse 18, let’s start there. “If the world hates you, you know that it has,” what? We don’t win here, you get this? They killed Him, they killed the apostles, and in every generation they kill the people who proclaim the truth. “You know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world,” – verse 19 – “the world would love its own; but because you’re not of the world,” – so if you want the world to love you, you’ve got to convince them that you’re not against them. But we are against them, not out of animosity, but out of love. “If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you’re not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.” Chapter 16, verse 33, all the way at the end of that chapter our Lord says the end of the verse, “In the world you’ll have trouble. Take courage,” – what? – “I’ve overcome the world.” We don’t win the battle here, you can’t, can’t fight. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world,” John 18. “If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would” – what? – “fight.” We’re not fighting this world, we get it.“Blessed are those who are persecuted.” No, we don’t win here. In fact, it gets worse, doesn’t it? Evil men get worse and worse. I mean, read the prophetic declarations of our Lord in the sermon on His second coming. Read the book of Revelation. It’s not going to get better, it’s going to get continually worse. And every generation of Christians is going to suffer for two reasons: because the world hates it, and because suffering perfects our faith and gives validity to our testimony. So we’re not going to win.

• 
  Peace🕊️ (@isjustnatural) reported 33 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm Fuckkkkkk fix the goddamn gameplay!!!! No fix for grenade indicators, no directional audio, no ttk overhaul, no movement upgrade, wtf are you guys doing??!? I am convinced this a social experiment at this point.

• 
  Daimeon Kennedy 𓃵 (@ChibRisky) reported 34 minutes ago

  @Aji_ben72 Even with the comet, Aang is still the biggest problem on that battlefield

• 
  adelvafa (@iranopessimist) reported 37 minutes ago

  @calvinfroedge This is obviously an out-of-reach upper limit that Iran is using as a starting position. Negotiations will whittle this down into something more realistic, provided the issue is settled on the battlefield.

• 
  Rabyaah Althaibani رابعة الذيباني (@rabyaahahmed) reported 38 minutes ago

  @MarioNawfal Reducing Yemen to an Iranian proxy is a convenient talking point, not serious analysis. Ansar Allah’s demands have been public for years: end the siege, lift restrictions on airports and ports, pay salaries, and stop foreign interference in Yemen. If those issues had been resolved through the Saudi-Yemen negotiations, there wouldn’t be a crisis to exploit. Yemen has its own agency and its own conflict—it is not merely a battlefield for someone else’s agenda.

• 
  Animosity 📸 (@ContainedAni) reported 38 minutes ago

  @SakurasCardShop I am not going to complain about a shop buying product for X price and selling it for a higher price, because I understand you have costs/overhead you need to account for. MSRP is something I only expect from big box retailers because they eat the cost of the product based on everything else they sell. A shop isn't a reseller in the same sense a dude flipping product out of his base is a reseller. Shops buy from their distributors for a price and then turn around and sell it for say 10-30% more (depends on the product) because of the business expenses. A reseller often has NO overhead costs because it's just one or two dudes, and they buy up ALL the available product and sell for astronomically high prices (100%+) leaving no room. If you have multiple people doing this then it becomes a problem. I have no problem paying $70 for an ETB that a shop's cost per unit is 20% lower on. A shop generally provides some sort of benefit to the community outside of just selling product (ie employment, place to play, adjacent/related products, ect) - a reseller offers NO benefit at all. To be clear, I am pretty vocal about the cost of living IRL. I have assisted in having a direct impact to the lowering of food, medicine, and electricity in my local state. I don't do this on twitter because that's not the atmosphere I cultivated for me here. They are still issues I hold dear, but this isn't the time or the place for it for me. You are more likely to hear about me complaining about the cost of this hobby here on twitter because I've deemed it more appropriate place to talk about this as the impact of the the cost of living is something is a battlefield that is better spent fighting offline.

• 
  BasedFenian (@FerociousFenian) reported 42 minutes ago

  @GloOouD You’re part of the problem. Sick celebrating the death of others, especially innocents in a terror attack. A restaurant anywhere is not a battlefield. I hope the same fate doesn’t befall you or your loved ones.

• 
  Hurricane (@hurricane1926) reported 43 minutes ago

  @CaptSwellHell @BattlefieldComm Bro, when are you going to realise they never going to fix this... It's the same game engine but it's not entirely BF4 and never going to be...

• 
  Pr0ve Me Wrong (@Exiting12DJail) reported 45 minutes ago

  THE UNIVERSAL REMEDY EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW — PART 1 How to Hold Police Officers Accountable Under Penalty of Perjury In my last post, I exposed what the Mollen Commission proved: the system lies. Officers perjure themselves. Prosecutors ignore it. Supervisors look the other way. Good cops are silenced; bad cops get promoted. Now that we know the problem, the question is simple: What can you do about it? This post provides a practicable, step‑by‑step blueprint for interacting with police officers in a courtroom. "What about prosecutors?" you might ask. That is the subject of my next post—a separate, detailed blueprint for holding prosecutors accountable when they file charges or represent the state. But first, let's start where most of us encounter the system: with law enforcement. 1. A Note on Where This Blueprint Applies This post is a blueprint for formal, recorded interactions—specifically, interactions that take place in a courtroom or other official proceeding. It is not a blueprint for a roadside traffic stop, a field interview, or any other informal encounter where there is no judge, no record, and no procedural framework. The dynamic is completely different. If you would like a post outlining how to handle a roadside encounter—including how to assert your rights without escalating the situation—let me know in the comments. I will put together a separate blueprint for that scenario. For now, this post is for the courtroom. 2. The Core Principle Unverified complaints are worthless. Sworn testimony is the gold standard. Legally, an unsworn complaint carries no evidentiary weight and creates no personal accountability. It is nothing more than an allegation on paper — a claim with no liability attached. A verified complaint is different. It is sworn under penalty of perjury. It carries consequences. It creates accountability. That is why the remedy begins here: Demand a verified complaint — sworn, signed, and personally accountable. Sworn statements carry penalties for perjury. Unsworn allegations do not. 3. What a Verified Complaint Looks Like A verified complaint is a sworn statement, signed under oath, with a declaration like: "I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct." Key elements: - The accuser's name and signature - Names of any witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the events - A declaration that the statement is made under penalty of perjury - The date of signing - Specific factual allegations based on firsthand knowledge Why this matters: A verified complaint creates personal accountability for the officer. If the complaint contains false statements, the officer can be prosecuted for perjury or false statements. 4. Why We Ask Questions Instead of Making Statements Most people walk into a courtroom believing they must defend themselves. They accept the label "defendant" without ever asking whether that label reflects the truth of the situation. But here is a thought I have wrestled with for years — a question that reveals the inversion at the heart of the system: "If the state makes the claim, and the burden always lies with the party who asserts a claim, then doesn't the state have the burden to prove its case? And if the state must prove its claim, who is the real defendant?" This question exposes the contradiction. Procedurally, the court calls you the defendant. Logically, you have made no claims. Strategically, you have nothing to defend. Morally, you stand in truth, not illusion. The state made the allegation. The state carries the burden. The state must prove its claim. Your role is not to defend yourself — your role is to examine the claim. And you do that by asking questions. Questions: - do not shift burden - do not concede anything - do not create liability - do not strengthen the accusation Questions keep the burden exactly where it belongs: on the party who made the allegation. This is pure strategy — the same strategy Sun Tzu taught: "The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy’s will to be imposed on him." You impose your will by asking questions. You avoid their will by refusing to make claims. You are not defending. You are examining. You are not on the stand. They are. 5. Cause and Effect: Why You Must Only Ask Questions Most people instinctively answer questions when they are asked. It feels natural, even polite. That is exactly what the system wants. When you answer their questions or make statements in response to their accusations, you are following their script, their narrative, and their will. You are on their turf. You are playing their game. You are defending—and when you defend, you lose. Here is the cause and effect: What You Do = What Actually Happens You answer their questions= You are following their script. You are on their turf. You are accepting their framing. You make statements = You are making claims that can be challenged, twisted, or used against you. You only ask questions = You impose your will on the encounter. You control the narrative. You force them to defend their claims. The principle is simple: "He who asks the questions controls the conversation." "He who answers questions follows the other's script." When you answer questions, you are giving them the power to define the narrative. You are accepting their version of events, their framing, and their assumptions. Even if you are telling the truth, you are doing it on their terms. When you ask questions, you take that power back. You decide what topics to address. You decide when and how to address them. You are no longer defending—you are examining. You are not on the stand. They are. 6. Statements Are Claims. Questions Are Not. When you make a statement, you are making a claim. That claim can be challenged, twisted, or used against you. When you ask a question, you are placing the burden on the other person. They must answer. They must explain. They must commit—or back down. That is why I frame every legal citation as a question. Example: "For the record and for a point of clarification, is it true that under 18 U.S.C. § 1621, any materially false statement made under oath constitutes perjury, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison?" You are not asserting the law. You are asking them to confirm the law. If they say "yes," they have acknowledged the consequences. If they say "no," they reveal ignorance. Either way, you have not made a claim—you have asked a question. 7. Using Case Law Without Making Claims Most people use case law incorrectly. They quote precedent as statements, which means they are making claims — and claims create burden. For example, many people say: "This case says I have the right to travel." That is a claim. It is an argument. It puts burden on you. It invites conflict. It places you in a defensive posture. But there is a better way — the remedy way. You convert precedent into a question, not a statement: "For the record and for a point of clarification, is it true that in [insert case] the court recognized the right to travel?" You did not make a claim. You did not argue. You simply asked them to confirm their own precedent. If they say yes, they acknowledge the authority of their own case law. If they say no, they reveal ignorance of their own system. Either way: You have not made a claim — you have asked a question. This is how you use their statutes, codes, regulations, and case law—without ever stepping into the trap of making claims. You use their system against itself, but you do it in the form of a question. This is pure Sun Tzu: "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." You do not fight. You do not argue. You do not claim. You do not defend. You ask questions. You examine. You impose your will. You force them to stand behind their own laws, their own cases, and their own words. You are not on the stand. They are. 8. Biblical Authority: The Moral Foundation for Truth and Accountability The call for truth and the condemnation of false witness are not modern legal inventions. They are ancient, foundational principles that carry divine weight. The Bible is unequivocal: bearing false witness is a sin with profound consequences. The foundation is laid in the Ninth Commandment: "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor." — Exodus 20:16 The Book of Proverbs repeatedly reinforces this: "A false witness will not go unpunished, and whoever pours out lies will not go free." — Proverbs 19:5 "A truthful witness does not lie, but a false witness breathes out lies." — Proverbs 14:5 "A lying witness will perish, but the one who reports accurately speaks forever." — Proverbs 21:28 In the New Testament, Yeshua elevated the standard further: "Let your word be 'Yea, yea' or 'Nay, nay'; anything more than this comes from the evil one." — Matthew 5:37 This principle is echoed by the apostle James: "Let your 'Yes' be yes, and your 'No,' no, so that you will not fall under judgment." — James 5:12 A person's word should be their bond. It should be so reliable that a sworn oath is simply a formal confirmation of their habitual truthfulness. When the Mollen Commission exposed a system where "testilying" had become routine, it was not just a legal failure—it was a profound moral one. The Bible commands that we not bear false witness. The practical steps in this post are the way to hold false witnesses accountable. 9. The Accountability Toolkit: Questions to Ask Police Officers These questions are not random. They are a structured sequence designed to: - lock the officer into their written complaint - force verification under penalty of perjury - eliminate hearsay - expose ignorance - attach personal liability - freeze the record Every question begins with: "For the record and for a point of clarification…" This signals that everything said next is entering the record — the battlefield where truth is measured and lies are exposed. Each question has a purpose. Each question moves the burden. Each question tightens the frame. You are not defending. You are examining. And the record is the witness. Question 1: Lock Them Into Their Complaint: "For the record and for a point of clarification, is there anything in your complaint that you would like to change, or does it stand exactly as written?" Why this works: It forces the officer to either commit or admit inconsistency. If they say they want to change something: "Then the complaint is not accurate as written. Please provide the corrected version." If they say it stands as written: "Thank you. For the record, you have confirmed that the complaint stands exactly as written. I will hold you to every word." Question 2: Demand Verbal Verification Under Oath: "Now, for the record and for a point of clarification, are you prepared to verify your complaint verbally on the record under penalty of perjury and accept personal liability for your claims?" Why this works: They have already committed to the complaint. Now they must either: - Say "Yes" —which means they are now on record, under oath, with full personal liability. - Say "No" —which means they are unwilling to stand behind their own complaint under oath. Question 3: Ask About Firsthand Knowledge: "For the record and for a point of clarification, do you have firsthand knowledge of this matter, or are you relying on secondhand information?" Why this works: It eliminates hearsay. If they are relying on secondhand information, they cannot verify the complaint under oath. Question 4: Ask About the Mollen Commission: "For the record and for a point of clarification, are you aware of the Mollen Commission's 1994 findings—that police perjury and falsification of official records is probably the most common form of police corruption facing the criminal justice system?" Why this works: It reminds the officer that their own system has a documented history of lying under oath. Question 5: Ask About the Laws (Question Form): "For the record and for a point of clarification, is it true that under 18 U.S.C. § 1621, any materially false statement made under oath constitutes perjury, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison?" "For the record and for a point of clarification, is it true that under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, any materially false statement made in a federal matter—even outside of court—is a felony, also punishable by up to five years in prison?" "For the record and for a point of clarification, is it true that under the Administrative False Claims Act, false written statements can result in civil penalties of up to $14,308 per claim, plus double damages?" Why this works: You are not telling them the law. You are asking them to confirm the law. Question 6: Demand the Verified Complaint "For the record and for a point of clarification, is it correct that a sworn, verified complaint submitted under penalty of perjury, with full personal liability accepted by the accuser, is the only complaint that carries legal weight?" Why this works: It forces the officer to acknowledge that an unsworn complaint is worthless. Question 7: Document Everything "For the record and for a point of clarification, will you confirm your responses in writing? I will be documenting every statement made and every question asked." Why this works: It creates a paper trail that can be used later. 10. The "Seal the Deal" Exchange Before you ever step into a courtroom, you must understand one principle: You are not speaking to the judge. You are not speaking to the officer. You are not speaking to the prosecutor. You are speaking to the record. The record is everything. The record is what: - the appellate court reads - higher courts review - the system relies on - truth is measured against - lies are exposed by Your questions establish the record. Their answers establish the record. The judge is simply the person through whom the record is created. The officer is simply the person whose statements enter the record. The prosecutor is simply the person whose claims must withstand the record. Your dialogue with the plaintiff is not personal. It is not emotional. It is not argumentative. It is procedural. You are using them to set the record straight. Every question you ask: - freezes the narrative - locks in their claims - attaches liability - exposes contradictions - documents their knowledge - documents their ignorance - documents their refusal - documents their verification - documents their hesitation You are not on the stand. They are. And the record is the witness. Here is how the complete exchange sounds in practice: You: "For the record and for a point of clarification, is it correct that unsworn allegations have no evidentiary weight and create no personal accountability?" Officer: "I don't know." You: "For the record, you are stating you are unaware. Let me ask you this: is it true that under 18 U.S.C. § 1621, perjury is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison?" Officer: "Yes." You: "Thank you. For the record, you have confirmed you are aware of the penalty for perjury. Now, is there anything in your complaint you would like to change, or does it stand exactly as written?" Officer: "It stands as written." You: "Thank you. For the record, you have confirmed the complaint stands as written. I will hold you to every word. Now, are you prepared to verify that complaint verbally on the record under penalty of perjury and accept personal liability?" 11. Stay On Point. Stay In Your Lane. There is one piece of advice more important than anything else in this entire post: Stay on point. Stay in your lane. Judges are masters at getting you to follow their narrative. They will hammer you with questions. They will interrupt you. They will try to pull you into their framing. They will try to make you defend yourself. They will try to make you argue. They will try to make you explain. They do this five days a week. You don’t. They have special training in getting people to make mistakes, lose focus, and follow the court’s script instead of their own. Your job is simple: Do not fall for it. Do not take the bait. Do not follow their narrative. Do not answer their questions. Do not defend yourself. Do not explain anything. Stay on point. Your point is always the same: You ask questions. They answer questions. The record is established. That’s it. You are not there to argue. You are not there to explain. You are not there to defend. You are not there to adopt their framing. You are there to examine the claim — and you do that by asking questions. Every time they try to pull you off your point, return to your lane: "For the record and for a point of clarification…" This resets the battlefield. This resets the narrative. This resets the record. This resets the burden. 12. When They Become Belligerent At some point, they will become belligerent. It might be the judge. It might be the prosecutor. It might be the officer. They will raise their voice. They will press you. They will try to provoke you. They will try to pull you off your point. When that happens, do not escalate. Do not match their energy. Do not follow their narrative. Instead, do something simple and powerful: A calm, centered response disarms hostility and resets the encounter. Try something like this: "Have I offended you in any way? And if I have, will you forgive me?" This resets the entire encounter. It disarms hostility. It breaks their momentum. It centers you. It keeps you in your lane. It keeps you on point. It reminds them — and you — that: Blessed are the peacemakers. Then return to your point: "For the record and for a point of clarification…" You are not there to fight. You are not there to argue. You are not there to defend. You are not there to adopt their framing. You are there to examine the claim and establish the record. And remember: It’s not what the judge, the cop, or the prosecutor says that creates liability for you — it’s what you say. So stay on point. Your point, not theirs. If you lose your point, you lose the encounter. If you stay on point, you control the encounter. Stay On Point. 13. The Closing Question Everything in this post leads to one question—the question you must ask every police officer who makes a claim against you: "Are you aware of the Mollen Commission's findings? Are you prepared to verify your claim under penalty of perjury and accept personal accountability for every word you say?" That question changes everything. The Commission documented that the system lies. Now you must demand the truth—under penalty of perjury. 14. What Comes Next This post is only the beginning. You now understand how to hold police officers accountable under penalty of perjury — the first point of contact with the system, and the foundation of everything that follows. But the next stage is even more important. In Part 2, we move deeper into the system — to the people who turn allegations into charges: the prosecutors. You will learn: - how to force prosecutors to verify every claim - how to expose hearsay in charging documents - how to demand sworn affidavits - how to attach personal liability to prosecutorial claims - how to use their own rules of professional conduct - how to use the advocate‑witness rule - how to freeze the record before trial - how to prevent them from hiding behind procedure Part 1 teaches you how to confront the officer's complaint, Part 2 teaches you how to confront the prosecutor in the courtroom. The remedy continues. Stay on point. Your point, not theirs. Part 2 is coming. Know Thyself. Free Thyself.

• 
  CalvZynisT (@CalvZynisT) reported 48 minutes ago

  @EA_DICE @Battlefield it’s just ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE to pay PREMIUM PRICE for a AAA developed game, and I bought the expensive edition as well, to have it be basically unplayable half the time due to packet issues. I don’t lag in ANY other game like this, I have spectacular internet. I don’t lag in Tarkov… u telling me TARKOV has better servers than EA / DICE? I don’t lag in COD or Counter strike either. It’s so angering and pathetic

• 
  TekkenJlN (@germanocassese) reported 50 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm Revert s4 Movement Nerfs Fix Invisible Nades Fix Blank Screen Fix Network Crashes Take actions vs High Ping abusers S4 is currently the worst season so far. The frustration is at the highest. Do this or we can say the game is over.

• 
  GhostGaming (@GhostGamingG) reported 51 minutes ago

  This clip demonstrates why the fast TTK in Battlefield 6 coupled with shoddy netcode can be SO frustrating. The guy literally jumps around the corner in a split second, turns and then shreds me in 266ms. Average human reaction time is about 250ms ish. I know some people will say ''skill issue'' but I honestly reacted instantly, I wasn't even sprinting. My aim could have been closer to center mass/head, but I still didn't stand a chance. It just felt like I died to unfair netcode/ping and it feels like ****.

• 
  A Fistful of Sats (@AFistfulOfSats) reported 52 minutes ago

  @Battlefield How come there's no communication from you on any platform about your current outage? Is your site's green status indicator hardcoded to always show healthy? What's the ETA for the fix?

• 
  sil be (@coma_the_one) reported 52 minutes ago

  @Battlefield server down, queue and error could load data, again and again ....

• 
  Ziggy's Glizzy Gun Grease Co (@ZiggysGlizzy) reported 52 minutes ago

  @Txp_RBI_Xctuxl The L2/R2 buttons had an issue with breaking the hinge pins at some point and my dad who just plays battlefield had to replace it a few times. I think he's on controller 3 or 4 but after he got that last one he's had no other issues.

• 
  Abdullah (@lql_00) reported 56 minutes ago

  @MnKSpdi I can't believe you didn't mention the recoil problem. The weapon system needs a rework from the ground up. Make it just like 4 or The Finals, because those who worked on the previous Battlefield know better. Haha

• 
  Johnny (@OneEyedJohny) reported 56 minutes ago

  @Battlefield @CoolGuyGames Servers down?

• 
  DethNade (@DethNade) reported 56 minutes ago

  @Battlefield I stop playing months ago. You guys at battlefield are still having problems every session. You guys don't "fix" the important stuff. Do you guys even care on making games?

• 
  ????? (@JandD2009) reported 59 minutes ago

  "The concept of “disease” as a discrete enemy entity is a modern fabrication. It is not an observable force of nature. It is not a law of biology. It is a linguistic invention used to describe a collection of ****** processes that are misunderstood, deliberately misrepresented, and aggressively monetised. There is no moment in the natural world where the body suddenly “catches” a disease in isolation. What exists instead is a continuum of adaptation. Cells responding to pressure. Tissue responding to chemistry. ***** systems responding to load, toxicity, deficiency, trauma, and electrical disturbance. Disease is not a cause. It is a label applied after the fact. Before modern medicine reframed the body as a battlefield, health was understood as terrain. Internal environment. Blood quality. Mineral balance. Waste removal. Nervous system tone. ***** drainage. Structural alignment. Even early biological science recognised that the state of the internal milieu determined outcomes far more reliably than exposure to any external organism. The pivot away from terrain was not accidental. It was ideological. Germ theory did not win because it explained reality better, it won because it simplified blame. By externalising the cause of illness, responsibility was removed from industrial food systems, chemical exposure, environmental toxicity, emotional trauma, and structural stress. If microbes were the enemy, then factories were innocent. If bacteria were the cause, then solvents, metals, radiation, and endocrine disruptors were conveniently irrelevant. This inversion allowed medicine to stop asking why tissue breaks down and instead obsess over what could be killed. Microorganisms did not suddenly become dangerous in the last century, they have existed since life itself. Bacteria, fungi, and parasites are not foreign invaders, they are recyclers, decomposers, and adaptive responders. In a healthy, oxygenated, mineralised internal environment, they exist in benign or symbiotic states. They assist digestion, cellular signalling and waste processing. When the internal terrain degrades, they change. This is pleomorphism. Not philosophy. Observation. Microbes alter their form, behaviour and function based on the condition of the tissue they inhabit. In clean environments they remain cooperative. In toxic, acidic, oxygen-poor, electrically unstable environments, they shift into scavenger modes. They do not create decay. They respond to it. Rot comes first, scavengers follow. This single principle dismantles the entire contagion mythology. If microbes were the primary cause of illness, exposure would produce consistent outcomes. It does not. Two people can share the same space, breathe the same air, ingest the same organisms, and experience completely different biological responses. The variable is not the germ. It is the terrain. The body is not passive in this process. It is profoundly intelligent. Inflammation is not pathology. It is increased circulation, designed to deliver oxygen, minerals and repair substrates to overloaded tissue. Fever is not a malfunction, it is a regulated metabolic escalation intended to denature waste, inhibit parasitic activity, and accelerate detoxification. Mucus is not disease. It is a solvent produced by the body to bind, encapsulate, and remove irritants and toxins. Pain is not an error message, it is feedback. Symptoms are not evidence of failure, they are evidence of efforts by the body to heal. What modern medicine calls disease is almost always the body entering a corrective or compensatory phase. When these phases are allowed to complete, resolution follows. When they are suppressed, interrupted, or chemically overridden, the process does not stop, it retreats deeper into the system. This is how acute processes become chronic. This is how inflammation becomes degeneration. This is how “managed conditions” multiply. Cancer is the most aggressively misunderstood example of this inversion. Cancer is not random, it is not genetic roulette, it is not cells “turning against the body”. Cells do not revolt, they adapt. Cancer emerges when tissue is forced into survival mode under sustained conditions of toxicity, hypoxia, mineral depletion, and drainage failure. Cellular multiplication becomes a compensatory response to an environment that no longer supports normal respiration and repair. Growth is not the enemy, growth is the last option left. Parasites, solvents, heavy metals, mycotoxins, and electrical disruption create the conditions where normal cellular respiration collapses. Mitochondrial function is impaired, oxygen utilisation drops, waste accumulates. Cells respond by shifting metabolic pathways, tissue architecture changes and proliferation increases. This process is then named, labelled and treated as if it were an alien invader rather than an internal adaptation. The intervention strategy follows the same flawed logic. Poison the system, burn the tissue, suppress the signals, remove the mass. At no point is the terrain restored. At no point are the original conditions corrected. The environment that forced the adaptation remains intact, so the process returns, or it reappears elsewhere, or a new diagnosis replaces the old one. The body is an electrical, chemical, and biological system governed by laws. It responds predictably to inputs. Industrial food devoid of minerals creates deficiency. Chemical exposure creates detox burden. Emotional trauma dysregulates the nervous system. Structural compression impairs circulation. Environmental radiation disrupts coherence. None of this is mysterious. It is cumulative. Ancient systems understood this because they observed the body holistically. Blood, breath, emotion, structure, digestion, elimination, and consciousness were reminders that health was not something administered externally, it was cultivated internally. Even religious and mythological texts encoded these truths symbolically. Regeneration, purification, sacrifice, resurrection, and redemption were not abstract moral tales. They were physiological maps describing cycles of breakdown, cleansing, repair, and renewal within the human body itself. But a population that understands its own regenerative capacity cannot be controlled. So knowledge was fragmented. Biology was separated from chemistry. Chemistry was separated from electricity. Medicine was separated from nutrition. Nutrition was separated from soil. Consciousness was dismissed entirely. The body was rebranded as a faulty machine instead of a self-regulating intelligence. Disease, as a concept, is the glue that holds this illusion together. Once a label is applied, inquiry stops, the individual becomes a diagnosis, treatment replaces understanding, lifelong management replaces resolution. But when you remove the label, the pattern becomes obvious. The body is always doing the best it can with the materials and conditions it is given. It does not need to be attacked. It does not need to be overridden. It does not need to be frightened into submission. It needs the terrain restored. And that truth, more than any single fact, is what the system cannot afford you to remember." - J Freeman