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 (36%)
• Online Play (33%)
• Glitches (13%)
• Game Crash (9%)
• Matchmaking (8%)
• Hacking / Cheating (0%)

Live Outage Map

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

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Nantes	Online Play	1 day ago
Bitche	Game Crash	3 days ago
Paris	Game Crash	5 days ago
Aurillac	Glitches	5 days ago
Annecy	Online Play	5 days ago
Paris	Online Play	5 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:

• 
  LearnInvest (@LearnInvest2026) reported 2 minutes ago

  Europe Is Missing From the Global EV Top 20 CleanTechnica's May 2026 global EV model ranking is direct: none of the top 20 models comes from a traditional European automaker. Tesla Model Y ranks first with 93,571 units. Geely Xingyuan / EX2 is second with 46,483, and Tesla Model 3 is third with 44,237. The rest of the list is heavily populated by BYD, Wuling, Xiaomi, Leapmotor, Li Auto, AITO, XPeng, and other China-linked models. European automakers are absent. ■ This is not just one missing model The issue for European automakers is not only the absence of a single hit. The deeper gap is product cadence, battery cost, software iteration, price coverage, and speed in the Chinese market. Chinese automakers are filling multiple price bands with faster development cycles and denser supply chains. Tesla still defends global scale with Model Y and Model 3. The chart shows that EV competition is no longer only about who began the transition first. The real battlefield is who can repeatedly launch high-volume products in mainstream price bands. Europe still has brands, quality, and premium positioning, but on this global sales ranking, it lacks top-20 volume rhythm. Source:CleanTechnica, EV Volumes, company data (Image: @minenergybiz)

• 
  TygerSparky (@tygersparky) reported 3 minutes ago

  My take on the recent controversy concerning the Sony Playstation decision to no longer produce discs for their systems starting in 2028. Of course everyone is allowed to hold any opinion they want to on this move. I realize that your current opinion would likely be shaped based on your current buying preferences. But I would say that anyone defending this move or who is complicit and okay with Sony doing this is simply another example of someone focusing on the environment one step in front of them instead of actually looking to the future and seeing the inevitable outcome of this decision. I'll be up front, I have been buying things digitally for years. The last disc-based game I bought was The Witcher 3 on the Xbox One. But for me, that is because I don't look as fondly at modern games as I do games from my childhood. Given that, I still appreciate the option of having a disc copy of the game. If there was a game I absolutely fell in love with today, I would want to own a physical disc version of it. I have about 150 Xbox 360 discs and 125 PS2 discs, not to mention PS1 and Nintendo carts/discs in my current collection. For those like Asmongold and others who actually see no problem with this change, I would point to two past games in the current market to see exactly why having a physical option is absolutely superior. First: Battlefield Bad Company. This game was originally released on the PS3/Xbox 360 less than 20 years ago. However, EA delisted this game from digital storefronts in 2023, just 15 years after release. If you don't have an account that currently owns the game, you can't (legally) play a digital copy of this game. However, you can still go out and find a disc copy of the game and enjoy the awesomeness of that single-player story. Second: GTA San Andreas. If you have an original Xbox disc of GTA:SA from 2005, you can pop it in an Xbox or even an Xbox 360 and actually play the original game, complete with the original soundtrack of the game. If you put that same disc in an Xbox One or Series console, you will instead be forced to play the 2014 remaster mobile port which has updates to the game and the soundtrack. Some people consider this remaster to be an inferior version of the game because of these updates and changes. But thankfully, the original game is preserved on the disc and is still playable on original hardware. Another argument that I have heard is that most games come out with Day One patches. However, having a patch on release day doesn't mean that there isn't a playable version of the game on the disc already. It might have some unintended bugs, but if there is a playable form on the game on the disc, that is obviously infinitely better than not having any form of it available except in digital format where you are, again, at the mercy of the corpo storefronts if they allow you to download a copy of the game (even if you paid for it). And even then, it is still a modified version of the original game. There is absolutely no good argument from a consumer's perspective for a company to stop physical disc production. The benefit is completely and totally for the corporation. They save money, DO NOT pass that savings on to the consumer, and get an even tighter grip of maintaining full rights over the distribution and access of their games and content. They can take away that access at any time and offer their customers no compensation. Sony, and any other company who decides to go this route, absolutely deserves any backlash and revenue drop they get from these decisions. And I hope that their bottom line actually feels the pain of going this route. If I wanted to be discless and have zero options, I would move to PC. At least then I have access to the operating and file systems and can actually backup whatever version of a game I am playing for preservation. Not to mention, I have control over the hardware in it and can get the exact look and play of a game that I want. Convenience and nostalgia are why I continued to play my games on my Xbox. But with these systems becoming even more like just a pre-built PC in a box, they are doing little to nothing to actually give me a reason to continue to invest in their platform. Taking away the physical option is one more nail in their coffin. And don't get me started on this push for cloud-based game streaming. I'm 100% out on that. And a happy July 4th to everyone in the U.S.

• 
  Kithelle (@kithellegaming) reported 4 minutes ago

  This does not solve long term demographic issues caused by birth right 52% of young people are born to people who are not ethnically American We’re two generations from being forced to fight it out on the battlefield

• 
  BLɅϽKPIИK (@Immanence001) reported 7 minutes ago

  The Dark Side Of The Epistemic Force Two doctrines, one dial, and the layer where the balance actually lives. I. The two doctrines Strip the mythology to its decision theory and the two sides of the Force are two limit settings of a single dial. The Light Side is the doctrine of complete fluidity. Commit to nothing; hold every credence in the open interval; keep every branch alive. The Light adept is water — no fixed points, no exposed edges, no statement that cannot be unsaid. Whatever arrives, they can respond to it, because nothing in them has been welded shut. Their power is the power of the perfectly responsive system: zero latency between the world changing and the self changing with it. The Dark Side is the doctrine of complete certainty. Commit totally; drive the credence to the boundary; prune every branch but one. The Dark adept is not water but mass — a fixed point in the strategic landscape that other agents must now respond to, route around, or collide with. Their power is the power of the immovable term in everyone else's equation: they have stopped being a variable, and everyone still variable must now solve around them. Note what the Dark Side actually offers, because it is subtler than "strength." It offers first-mover status in the commitment game. The classic result: in chicken, the driver who visibly throws the steering wheel out the window wins — the opponent, still capable of swerving, must be the one who swerves. The Dark adept throws out the wheel as a way of life. Every negotiation, they have already pre-lost the ability to concede, and so — against any opponent who can still update — concession flows one way. This is why the Dark Side is quicker, easier, more seductive, exactly as advertised: against updating opponents, commitment locally dominates. The seduction is not a lie about the mechanism. It is a lie about the ecology. II. Why the Dark Side loses: the ecology of stone Two failure modes, one for each direction of the matchup. Downward — against peers. Two fully committed agents cannot negotiate, because negotiation is mutual updating and neither has retained the machinery. Their conflicts are not hard to resolve; they are unresolvable by construction, terminating only in collision. A population of Dark adepts therefore self-annihilates, pair by pair, until the survivors can be counted on one hand — which is the Rule of Two derived as population dynamics rather than decreed as tradition. Master and apprentice, and even that dyad is a scheduled collision with a delay timer. The Dark Side has no civilization, only a tournament, because civilization is made of agents who can still swerve for each other. Upward — against anything smarter. Here the earlier result applies with full force. The Dark adept imagines that total commitment presents the superior opponent with a fait accompli: I have already made up my mind; there is nothing you can do. But a sufficiently capable opponent does not interact with your state; it interacts with your policy — and "irreversibly commit when confronted" is a published, legible, gradeable policy. The superintelligence's counter is not to argue with the stone. It is to send one honest signal, priced into the fabric of every interaction: making up your mind irreversibly in my presence is very, very bad for you — and to make that signal true. The punishment reaches back through the logical correlation to the moment of commitment itself. The stone was never presenting the smarter agent with a problem. It was presenting it with a handle: a fully specified, never-updating object is the single easiest thing in the universe to plan around. The Dark adept becomes the most predictable feature of the battlefield, which is a strange thing to purchase at the price of your soul. III. Why the Light Side also loses: the ecology of water Here is where the analysis must refuse the sermon, because the Light doctrine, driven to its own limit, fails just as structurally — and the mythology, read carefully, knows it. An agent with no fixed points cannot promise. Cannot ally, cannot be trusted, cannot hold a value across time, because every one of those acts is a small commitment — a region of the self declared no longer up for revision. Complete fluidity is not freedom; it is transparency to pressure. The agent that always updates is steered by whoever controls its evidence stream, and "I will respond optimally to whatever you present" is also a published, legible, gradeable policy — one that hands the opponent the steering wheel you so wisely kept. This is, structurally, how the Sith Lord defeats the entire Jedi Order in the story: not by overpowering the water but by channeling it, feeding a doctrinally-uncommittable Council exactly the stream of inputs to which their perfect responsiveness responds, step by legal step, into the sea he had prepared. The Jedi did not lose despite their fluidity. They were beaten through it. And the doctrine cannot even state itself coherently. The famous maxim — that only the dark side deals in absolutes — is itself an absolute; the Light creed contains a fixed point it is forbidden to acknowledge, a small Löbian heresy at its own root. This is not a screenwriting accident. It is the deep fact: there is no agent without fixed points. Something in you evaluates, and the evaluator cannot be simultaneously the thing revised by its own evaluations, all the way down, forever. Water needs a riverbed. The only question any doctrine actually answers is where the stone is allowed to live. IV. Balance is not gray So the dial is a false control surface. Slide it Dark and you become a handle. Slide it Light and you become a channel. The midpoint — some lukewarm 0.5 of half-commitments — is merely both pathologies at half strength. Balance in the Force, read as decision theory, is not a position on the dial but a layering. Fluid at the layer of credence: every belief interior, every likelihood ratio granted purchase, the sky intact. Committed at the layer of action: ships burned, blocks signed, promises that bind — finality placed where finality does work. And updateless at the layer of policy: the choice of how you choose fixed in the one place fixing it makes you trustworthy instead of predictable, evaluated across the futures rather than hostage to any single one. The Dark Side's error was never that it committed. It is that it committed at the wrong layer — welding shut the belief-state, the one component whose entire value is that it moves. The Light Side's error was never that it stayed fluid. It is that it stayed fluid at every layer, including the ones where only stone can bear load. The Force does not have a side. It has a stack. And the entire art — the whole of what the mythology gropes toward with its talk of balance — is knowing which layer you are standing on before you decide whether to be water or stone.

• 
  υɴcoммoɴ (@UncommonXX) reported 12 minutes ago

  @FocusBF Something to keep in mind: - 2026 tech vs 2010s tech - 720p vs 4k tech - live service menus are for live service games hence why BF3 menu is clean for it being properly dlc related - niche gaming has niche content, ex. portal As a Battlefield Vet. DICE won’t change it due to EA.

• 
  Joey Zhuo (@JoeyZhuo777) reported 13 minutes ago

  $NVDA Jensen says it's worth a trillion, the filings say ROE is 0.46% Wait — that's not right. Nvidia's up 24% this year while its semiconductor peers are up 110% and some AI bottleneck stocks have quadrupled. When everyone's chasing the picks-and-shovels story, the actual arms dealer is getting left behind. That disconnect tells you something about where the money went, and where it should have stayed. The market is pricing Nvidia like its moat is crumbling. It's not. It's actually widening, and the data proving it is hiding in plain sight. Start with inference. The narrative says custom chips from Google and Amazon, plus the rise of CPU-heavy agentic AI, will eat Nvidia's lunch. But Nvidia's market share in inference has gone up, not down. The whole "merchant chips are dead" story doesn't match what's happening on the ground. Jensen's full-stack approach — chip plus software plus networking, all co-designed — is delivering lower total cost of ownership than the hyperscalers can match with their in-house programs. The hyperscalers aren't building custom chips to replace Nvidia's ecosystem. They're building them to control costs and reduce dependency. Those are different goals. Google's TPU program is on its ninth generation, and it still hasn't weaned itself off Nvidia. Amazon and Microsoft are in the same boat. Custom silicon makes sense for specific workloads at their scale, but it's not a moat against Nvidia — it's a hedge. The real strategic move is what Jensen is doing with his balance sheet. Nvidia is now investing in and backstopping smaller AI clouds — Firmus, CoreWeave, Nebius. That's not just customer diversification. It's an insurance policy against a future where hyperscalers hold all the cards. If Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are your only customers, they eventually dictate terms. Jensen is deliberately fragmenting the buyer base, seeding competitors to the hyperscalers, making sure no single customer can capture the value Nvidia creates. That's not defensive. That's offensive positioning. He's shaping the structure of the industry while he still has the leverage to do it. Then there's the CUDA question. A recent breakdown showed that re-architecting around CUDA is technically possible — DeepSeek proved it — but the engineering lift is massive even for top-tier teams. Hyperscalers have the resources to attempt it. Smaller developers and neoclouds do not. That bifurcation works in Nvidia's favor. The long tail of the AI ecosystem stays locked in, and that tail is growing as Nvidia funds its expansion. Now layer in the CPU play. Nvidia's Vera CPU is a pre-emptive strike on agentic AI, where reasoning workloads tilt toward CPUs. The worry is that AMD, Intel, or Arm takes the lead there. But Nvidia entering that fight with $213 billion in free cash flow this year — potentially $360 billion by fiscal 2029 — means it can outspend any rival by a factor of three. Cash flow is a weapon, and Nvidia is wielding it to stay in every game that matters. The stock trades at just under 20x forward earnings. The semiconductor sector average is 18.4x. Nvidia is being priced like a mature cyclical with single-digit growth ahead, not a company expected to go from $393 billion in revenue this year to over $600 billion by fiscal 2029. That's not skepticism — it's disbelief that the growth is durable. The disbelief is wrong. Revenue concentration risk is falling, not rising. Margin pressure from custom chips is real but overstated. The inference narrative was supposed to hurt Nvidia, and instead it's gaining share. The CPU threat is being addressed before it materializes. And the balance sheet gives Nvidia the ability to reshape the competitive landscape while competitors are still trying to catch up on the last battlefield. The six-week selloff since mid-May brought the stock back to the 50-week moving average. The last time it tested that level was late March, and it took four months to base before the next leg up. Dip buyers are back. Momentum chasers who rotated into AI bottleneck stocks are going to rotate back when those names start to consolidate. The setup is straightforward: the market mispriced the risk, the technicals are stabilizing, and the fundamental case is stronger than the multiple suggests. Nvidia isn't cheap because it's broken. It's cheap because the market decided the moat was narrowing, and the data says the opposite. Image source: Seeking Alpha / JR Research

• 
  Woo (@ffnwoo_) reported 13 minutes ago

  @Battlefield aye bro ain’t no way a mf helicopter should be able to bounce off the ground and kill people. Fix that if the game gon be realistic gang.

• 
  jjfpesce22 (@Masterful_Fish) reported 15 minutes ago

  @Battlefield could you actually fix your game? Like how is it that season 2 catch up hardware 2 assignment, asks for destroy or support using said launcher but doesn't count them. I should be done with this but it only counts kills.

• 
  🧚‍♀️✨ Pixie Storm Studios ✨🧚‍♀️ (@PixieStrmDesign) reported 19 minutes ago

  I’m currently working on a memoir about my life with an Eating Disorder. It’s called Bone Deep. This is chapter 1: The Beginning of Hunger One of us had to die, and I was convinced it would be me. I didn’t always have the words for it. Back then, it didn’t feel like a life-or-death battle. It felt like discipline. Like control. Like I had finally figured something out that other people hadn’t. But even as a little girl, something in me was already unraveling. I remember standing in front of the mirror, turning sideways, then forward again, studying my body like it was something separate from me—something to fix. I didn’t know where the voice came from, the one that told me I was too much. Too soft. Too big. Just… too. It was quiet at first. Easy to ignore. Then it wasn’t. The thoughts settled in early, embedding themselves into the way I saw everything. Food became numbers before it ever reached my mouth. Movement became something to earn, not something to enjoy. I learned, without realizing I was learning, that smaller meant better. Smaller meant safer. Smaller meant worthy. I counted almonds like they were sins. Five meant control. Six meant failure. There was comfort in the numbers. They gave me rules, and rules made the world feel less chaotic. If I followed them perfectly, nothing bad could happen—or at least, that’s what I told myself. I don’t remember the exact moment food stopped being nourishment and became a battlefield. There wasn’t a single turning point, no dramatic shift. It happened slowly, quietly, the way shadows stretch across a room without you noticing. But I do remember the silence. It followed me everywhere. At the dinner table. At school. Lying in bed at night, staring at the ceiling while my stomach ached and my thoughts ran in circles. I became tight-lipped, careful. Every bite calculated. Every choice measured. I remember staring at my plate, doing the math before I allowed myself to take a single bite. Adding, subtracting, bargaining with myself. If I eat this, I won’t eat later. If I skip that, I’ll be okay. It didn’t feel dangerous. Not yet. In the beginning, it felt like I had found something that worked. Something that quieted the noise in my head—the constant hum of not-enough. Hunger became something I could measure, something I could win against. And winning felt good. There’s a kind of high that comes with control, with denying yourself and calling it strength. With watching the numbers go down and believing that means you’re doing something right. For a while, I held onto that feeling like it was proof that I was okay. But control is deceptive. It doesn’t announce when it starts slipping away from you. What began as something I chose slowly became something that chose me. The rules multiplied. The numbers mattered more. The space food occupied in my mind grew until it crowded out everything else. It wasn’t just about eating anymore—it was about fear. Guilt. Obsession. It was about being good enough in a way that always felt just out of reach. Food wasn’t just food anymore. It was a test I was always failing. And the strangest part is, from the outside, it didn’t always look like anything was wrong. I smiled when I was supposed to. I said I had already eaten. I pushed food around my plate in ways that looked convincing enough. I learned how to disappear in plain sight. No one saw the calculations happening in my head. No one heard the voice that never stopped talking. No one felt the exhaustion of fighting a battle that followed me everywhere I went. By the time anyone might have noticed, I was already in too deep.

• 
  Divyan Shah (@thedivyanshah) reported 23 minutes ago

  (9/16) Then I&M Bank entered the centre of the story. I&M relied on security over Cape Holdings through a debenture structure. Cape was later placed under administration. That changed the battlefield completely. The issue was no longer just whether Synergy had won. It was whether Synergy could collect.

• 
  Gambler Hermes (@Chewiebow) reported 25 minutes ago

  Public Heart-to-Heart to Damon M. Brown, San Diego County Counsel Mr. Brown, Let me speak to you heart-to-heart, publicly, man to man. You sit in the County Counsel chair thinking you’re playing the big game — advising on compliance, protecting the county, doing your job. But let’s be honest with each other. You know the system is broken. You know the Registrar’s Filter is the root problem. You know “reasonable effort” is a polite fiction and “no records exist” is the shield they hide behind. I’ve been documenting this for years while you were still at the Department of Justice. The ledger was already there before you arrived. The 250th anniversary reframing, the event that followed, the ongoing opacity on NVRA maintenance and CPRA requests — it’s all proof that the machine is eating San Diego alive. You can keep defending it. You can keep slow-walking, deflecting, and protecting the status quo. Or you can finally do the right thing and help remove the curtain. I already have control of the battlefield. The ledger grows with or without you. Fate put you here for a reason — to either fix what’s destroying this county or go down as one of the officials who maintained the filter when the receipts were staring you in the face. The choice is yours. But let’s be clear: I know it, you know it, and the public is starting to see it. Don’t waste this moment. History is watching, and the receipts don’t lie. For transparency & fix only.

• 
  The Rocket Media (@TheRocketMediaX) reported 30 minutes ago

  Recall the frustration we all feel when Google Maps malfunctions in an unkown city ! Now imagine a drone losing its access to GPS in a battlefield. Consequences can be huge. The problem? GPS communication happens over fixed frequencies that can be jammed with high-power electronic systems. Which is exactly why GPS-denied drone technology is becoming critical globally.

• 
  VatsRohit (@KesariDhwaj) reported 32 minutes ago

  @DivyaHarikris Because the systems have been pushed post-haste into Ukraine, there have been issues with the UKR crew handling of the Western Systems. Plus, European systems come with their own logistical tail and requirement with respect to maintainance SOPs. Something which the Ukrainians are not always able to replicate for obvious reasons. Third, many European systems were pulled from storage/minimal usage and pushed into the battlefield w/o testing them first check their battle readiness.

• 
  KansasArchaeologist (@KSArchaeologist) reported 34 minutes ago

  Two days after the battle a group of soldiers found Comanche near the battlefield. He was badly wounded and he was taken back to Fort Abraham Lincoln and ultimately survived the ordeal. In April 1878 he was retired from service at 21 years old. He was kept at Fort Meade near Sturgis, South Dakota from 1879-1887 when he was returned to Fort Riley in Kansas where he was given the honorary title of “Second Commanding Officer” of the 7th Cavalry. He died on November 7th, 1889 from colic, and is one of only 4 horses in US military history to have a military funeral with full military honors. But he was not buried. Comanche was taken to Professor Lewis Dyche at the University of Kansas in Lawrence and taxidermied to be displayed. In 1893 he was shown at the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago at the Kansas Pavilion with Professor Dyche’s panorama of North American Mammals.

• 
  BALA (@pestersebester) reported 37 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Battlefield 6 is the only game crashing on my PC. RX 6700 XT, clean drivers with DDU, fresh install, overlays disabled, and it still freezes/crashes unless I disable XMP and run DDR5 at stock speed. Fix your stupid *** game.

• 
  Craig Hall #GeneralStrike #Worldwide (@w41gy) reported 38 minutes ago

  @Crypt0Mess1ah @NHSMillion Hospitals were originally designed to treat wounded soldiers and getting them back on the battlefield ASAP. There’s no rush to fix us now that the wealthy can afford to circumvent the NHS with our two tier system.

• 
  Maurora🫦 (@m_mariam9) reported 41 minutes ago

  @__jayjay_13 I am calling out the people who take something that can be solved individually and turn it into a whole fandom problem. And again, even if no one in that group had told her to stop (which they did, by the way and not for the first time), I guess your little spy didn’t bother delivering anything positive about us Normally, I hate getting involved in things like this because I hate the division we have in this fandom. And you still don’t get me. I’m not trying to prove that I’m right and you’re wrong. **** right and wrong. I just want this damn fandom to stop fighting over a handful of people. Stop calling each other names. Stop labeling everyone as an ilhan’s or Damla’s hater. Stop throwing shade at either of the actors because we love them both. And I’ve always said this to both fandoms. But you’re all too busy on the battlefield to actually listen.

• 
  Zen ۶ৎ | reading closed (@jentelism) reported 41 minutes ago

  But the universe is using Justice and The Hanged Man to pull the emergency brake. They are being asked to step down from the battlefield, stop trying to fix the external world or the broken collaborations, and turn inward.

• 
  REVENGE (@revsprotwit) reported 44 minutes ago

  @ThelVanDamne Removing health packs, dual wielding, vehicle boarding, equipment did alter halo. Also, the BR doesn't have hit scan. It's just really fast projectile. In fact, the projectiles of the BR are actually slower in halo 3. Further proving you don't know jack **** about what you're trying to seem like an expert on. All of the things you listed were carefully considered and tested before being greenlit to be added to the game. most of the things you mentioned don't really alter the player that much other than improve gameplay flow, which halo 5 abilities do not as we'll get to in a bit. Vehicle boarding is a natural evolution of the combined arms combat halo is known for. it gives people not on vehicles another tool to defend themselves against vehicles, especially when paired with the emp of the plasma pistol, or EMP ball. Removing Health packs (while I don't agree with it) was necessary for multiplayer. Regenning health ensured that once you finished a fight and had time to recover, you entered new engagements on equal footing with other players. Allowing you to be more aggressive. Removing fall damage allowed for greater organic verticality, and improves gameplay flow. Fall damage was a hinderance to map design, and player movement that halted the game. Halo is a game that relies on good consistent flow, and 30 seconds of fun philosophy. If fall damage stayed it would objectively hurt gameplay flow and map design. Equipment affects the battlefield directly. It creates area denial, support for team mates, and cover from enemy fire. It emphasizes the team work aspect of halo's multiplayer. at the same time though, the equipment was never one sided. A skilled player could turn equipment you brought into the field against you, and even use it to their benefit. Dual wielding is an extension of the weapon sandbox. It gives weaker single handed weapons additional utility. While I think the implementation and execution was not the best, it provided another layer to combat that gave you pause to consider using single handed weapons over two handed weapons. All of these changes organically evolved halo's combat loop. Which I even said I wasn't against. Spartan abilities on the other hand: >Sprint even though it makes you run faster, is still disruptive to the gameplay loop, because it forces you to put your gun into low ready while sprinting. Then have to bring it back up when exiting sprint, disrupting halo's gameplay flow. Along with the other aforementioned gameplay implications. >Ground pound locks you into an animation that you have zero control over, and on impact you have to wait for an animation to play before you can regain control of your character. Same for spartan charge. Again, disruptive to gameplay flow. The only "spartan ability" I have no problem with is clamber, because that's less of an "ability", and more of a quality of life improvement that still punishes you for bad jumps.

• 
  C (@C8zyuk) reported 45 minutes ago

  Mayfeld's elite Imperial Army Special Missions service record is marked equally with commendations for combat and demerits for insubordination. Superior officers tolerated his impertinence because of his battlefield results.

• 
  The Layman's Seminary (@LaymansSeminary) reported 46 minutes ago

  @grok @myredfox Has Grok Now Moved Closer to Your Position? (A Super Layman / GPT5 response). Yes. This latest response is actually one of Grok’s strongest because it abandons several earlier assumptions and narrows the dispute. Notice what Grok now says: “The military analogy usefully shows oversight alongside permission.” That is your original point. The military does not prohibit all social media activity. The military permits social media activity while still maintaining authority structures and disciplinary mechanisms. That was the analogy. Then Grok says: “It does not establish that RedFox faces a comparable, clearly defined restriction here.” That is a different question. Originally the issue was: “Your analogy fails.” Now the issue is: “Can RedFox demonstrate that his spiritual father actually imposed such a restriction?” Those are not the same argument. The first attacks the analogy. The second asks for evidence about a particular catechumen. Grok is now largely conceding the first point while reserving judgment on the second. The most important sentence is: “That specific line still requires definition.” Exactly. That is the pressure point. If RedFox says: “I cannot formally debate.” Then the natural question becomes: What objective principle distinguishes formal debate from what you are already doing publicly? Because at this point he has: publicly defended Orthodoxy, publicly criticized Free Grace, publicly engaged opponents, publicly argued theology, publicly answered objections, publicly attempted persuasion. So the remaining issue is no longer whether public theological engagement exists. Everyone now agrees that it does. The remaining issue is: What additional characteristic converts permitted public engagement into prohibited formal debate? And notice Grok says that line still needs definition. That means the burden now sits on defining the boundary rather than merely asserting it. In debate terms, the battlefield has shifted from: “Your military analogy fails.” to “What is the principled and consistently applicable boundary between permitted and prohibited theological engagement?” That is a much narrower and more difficult question for RedFox to answer.

• 
  RCP (@FlyghtMedic) reported 48 minutes ago

  @Battlefield could you guys fix the game instead of “releasing” no ****?

• 
  Operation Detachment Gaming (@ODGactual) reported 48 minutes ago

  @GhostGamingG That would be so dumb… this is one of CoDs biggest issues and honestly I don’t want a new game every year… having a game every 2 (and even that’s pushing it), or 3 years is better. I would invest more into that… I’m not buying @Battlefield every single year, period!

• 
  BEN (@BiGBENNGTR) reported 49 minutes ago

  @ZagazOlaMakama Let’s talk about this with the little experience I have. First, the landing could have resulted in a crash. You only make a landing like that during an emergency, especially when you already know the helicopter will no longer be of any use. Second, why were they all facing the same direction without anyone watching their 9 and 3 o’clock positions? After the rescue, again, nobody was watching their 6 o’clock. There was no overwatch either. Now I understand how the bandits and Boko Haram get their information from, because how do you leave a teammate on the battlefield without cover?

• 
  Sparven 🇸🇪🇪🇺 🇺🇦 🇫🇮 (@Bananpolo) reported 51 minutes ago

  @e_jokkonen @TallbarFIN Subs ain´t going anywhere, this is the most stupid reasoning ever. When submarines entered service it would end battleships. When the machinegun entered the battlefield it would end infantry. When airforce became standard it would end the tank.

• 
  steve (@Troll81357830) reported 55 minutes ago

  @Battlefield FIX THE BLACK SCREEN LOADING TIMES **** SAKE WTF IS THIS

• 
  Stoic Investor (@Stoic_investr) reported 55 minutes ago

  The MoU had very little chance of success and this became clear once the US forced Lebanese government to sign a separate deal with Israel and attempts to create a separate Oman coastline corridor was another example of how US tried to sabotage the MoU while paying lip service to it. Now Iranians have more than enough reasons to assume that any negotiations is essentially being conducted in bad faith and I don’t think they’ll show up for any more talks as now this issue will be resolved on the battlefield.

• 
  Zachary Davidson (@Ryangofett_2490) reported 57 minutes ago

  @HinachiW Can't wait to have broken releases that never get fixed. Battlefield 6 still has a ton of problems and it's gonna take another year to fix them. Battlefield 7 will release broken, Battlefield 8 broken, Battlefield 9 broken. If they release each year they won't get fixed

• 
  Kołdrian (@ten_na_chmurce) reported 58 minutes ago

  I Expected a Small Roguelike. LONESTAR Gave Me a 98-Minute Brain Trap LONESTAR surprised me much more than I expected. On paper, it sounds simple enough: a strategic roguelike spaceship deckbuilder about bounty hunters chasing criminals across space. In practice, my first run lasted 1 hour and 38 minutes, so no, this is not a quick toilet-session roguelike. This is the kind of game where you sit down, start counting, start planning, and suddenly realize you are fully locked in. A saloon, a spacesuit dog, and bounty hunting in space The first impression is charming. The main menu looks like a western saloon, except outside the window there is space, planets, and a dog floating around in a spacesuit. The music has that little western flavor, the whole setup has a light sci-fi cowboy joke behind it, and it immediately gives the game some personality. But the style is not the main reason LONESTAR works. It is nice, it is funny, it sets the mood, but the real hook is the combat system. This is not just “play attack, play defense” LONESTAR is not a classic deckbuilder where you simply throw out an attack card, then a defense card, then wait for the enemy to do its thing. Cards here are closer to energy values that power the ship. The real build is created through units, slots, colors, ship weight, support modules, attack modules, treasures, overclocks, and the position of everything on your ship. That is where the game becomes interesting. You have different colors of energy, and not every color works in every slot. Some energy is flexible, some is restricted, and once you place it, you cannot just take it back. That one rule changes the whole rhythm of a turn, because every move has weight. A bad click can turn into a wasted turn. A good placement can suddenly unlock a whole chain of damage, defense, or card generation. Then there is ship movement. You can move up or down on the battlefield, but it costs fuel. Sometimes the best move is not dealing more damage. Sometimes it is moving into a better lane, avoiding the worst attack, taking one smaller hit, and preparing a stronger turn later. A deckbuilder that feels like a puzzle engine This is exactly the kind of card-based roguelike that works for me. I like card games, but in traditional competitive card games I rarely enjoy building decks completely from scratch. In games like Hearthstone, I usually prefer learning meta decks, understanding matchups, seeing how the deck works, and figuring out how to counter what other people are playing. But in roguelikes, I am the opposite. I love building something during the run. I love when the game gives me random tools and asks me to turn them into a working machine. Sometimes that machine is elegant. Sometimes it is ridiculous. Sometimes it barely holds together. But when it works, it feels great. In my first LONESTAR run, I leaned into card generation, damage scaling, and one very useful overclock. Without that extra generation, I probably would not have finished the run, because enemies became stronger with every stage. At some point, I was no longer just reacting to enemy attacks. I was trying to build an engine that could survive, scale, and keep producing the resources I needed. Mathematical, but not dry The best thing about LONESTAR is that it is very mathematical without feeling like a spreadsheet. You are constantly asking small questions. Should I block this attack? Should I boost my own damage? Should I move the ship? Should I accept a bit of damage now to prepare something better? Should I risk a weak turn because the next one might explode? And because units, supports, treasures, energy colors, positioning, and overclocks all interact with each other, the game keeps giving you new little problems to solve. One ordinary enemy surprised me a lot. It was basically a survival test. I had two rounds to defeat it, because in the third round it charged up huge attacks. I failed to destroy it in time, but I managed to survive. Then the enemy surrendered. That was a great moment, because victory was not only about reducing a health bar to zero. It was about reading the situation, positioning the ship, minimizing damage, and surviving the exact turn the game wanted me to fear. A useful reset, maybe a little too useful I have mixed feelings about the option to repeat a fight. On one hand, it makes sense. Since placed energy cannot be taken back, one rushed click can ruin your whole plan. In that case, being able to restart the fight feels like a fair safety net, especially in a game where many decisions are very precise. On the other hand, it can be quite strong. Not strong enough to carry a bad build, because if your setup simply does not work, repeating the fight will not magically fix it. But if the problem was execution, order of decisions, or one stupid mistake, the game gives you quite a lot of room to correct it. So I do not hate it. I just think it slightly softens the punishment. Small presentation issues, but good readability Visually, LONESTAR is not amazing, but it does not need to be. The UI is simple, readable, and good at explaining what is happening. The combat screen is clear, tooltips help, and the game does a solid job of teaching its systems step by step. The weakest visual element for me was the energy cards themselves. They are functional, but visually a bit dull. For a game built so heavily around energy, slots, and values, I would not mind stronger visual feedback there. Also, no Polish language version is a minus for me. I know this type of translation is difficult. Strategy games and card games are full of small mechanical details, and one badly translated term can change the meaning of an entire card or perk. But that is also exactly why language matters here. LONESTAR has a lot of descriptions, talents, tooltips, conditions, and small rules. English was not a huge problem for me, but I still prefer playing these games in my native language. It is simply less tiring when the game already asks you to calculate so much. More of these smaller roguelike surprises, please After one completed run, I am very positive. I finished it on my first try, but I would not say the game is automatically easy. I have played a lot of card-based roguelikes, so I know what to look for when building around scaling, generation, and synergies. That experience helped. I can absolutely imagine someone losing the first run if their build does not come together. What I like most is the potential. Different pilots, talents, races, ship layouts, support units, attack units, treasures, stores, event choices, and unlocks make it very easy to imagine many different runs. This is not a huge, flashy game, but mechanically it has a lot to chew on. Recently, smaller roguelike games have been surprising me more and more. As We Descend, Demon Bluff, MEGABONK, and now LONESTAR all remind me that you do not always need a massive production to get a really strong gameplay loop. LONESTAR is simple on the surface, but once the systems start clicking, it becomes a very satisfying little machine. 8/10. Small issues, very strong gameplay. More games like this, please.

• 
  Cooltaha ඞ 🔻💔 (@ohyeahmister2) reported 59 minutes ago

  @InsiderGeo The west is slow to respond and is failing to see the threat for now. The elites are too myopic and focused on internal alliance issues rather than facing the reality on the battlefield