Battlefield 6 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:

• 
  USAI Media (@USAI_Media) reported 46 seconds ago

  @tedlieu Calling Iran “second rate” misses the strategic lesson. The U.S. can hold overwhelming technological advantages, and still run into a munitions problem, if a prolonged conflict burns through interceptors, and precision weapons faster than industry can replace them. The Pentagon’s 21-day production directive is therefore less a verdict on Iran than a warning about the U.S. defense-industrial model. Modern war is increasingly an equation of inventory depth + expenditure rate + replenishment speed. If those numbers do not balance, even the superior force can lose strategic flexibility, before it loses battlefield dominance.

• 
  VERTEX (@vasilyaarkhipov) reported 1 minute ago

  1. THE KARGIL PROBLEM (Geography, altitude & limitations for platforms) We need to understand that Kargil Sector was not, or never a conventional battlefield. Pakistani army (Primarily NLI and SSG soldiers infiltrated under the cover of mujahids, with Pak initially presenting them as militants rather than regular forces) had occupied key IA positions and routes across the mushko valley, drass, kaksar, batalik & turtok sectors. Many positions were at 16–18K+ft, with some of the highest points creating an extremely difficult A2G environment.

• 
  franklee6924x (@franklee6924T) reported 4 minutes ago

  $NBIS — A Dangerous Model Nebius has been the best-performing stock among the Neocloud companies this year. First and foremost, this is due to its rapid revenue growth, which is supported by real AI business output. Second is the positioning Nebius has established for itself, defining the direction in which it intends to develop within the AI industry. Initially, Nebius defined itself as a “Fourth Cloud,” positioning itself against AWS, Azure, and GCP. It later adopted a positioning more aligned with the AI narrative, calling itself a “TOKEN FACTORY,” presumably modeled after NVIDIA’s AI FACTORY. Third, it secured orders from Microsoft and Meta totaling more than $40 billion. Fourth, it received investment and technical certification from NVIDIA. Fifth, it gained the substantial backing of AI investment prodigy Leopold Aschenbrenner. Sixth, it was added to the Nasdaq-100 Index. After completing its acquisition of Tavily, Nebius acquired Eigen AI, an AI infrastructure company focused on optimizing large-model inference, for approximately $640 million. Together with the integration of the Clarifai team and technology licensing, these moves collectively strengthened and built the full-stack AI technology architecture envisioned by Nebius, completing an end-to-end technology chain spanning data → search and retrieval → model training → model inference → application-layer APIs → productization. Tavily provides Nebius with structured, auditable, and controllable retrieval data flows, addressing the quality of external information access during model inference. Clarifai is responsible for packaging model capabilities into enterprise-ready APIs, serving as a connector between the application layer and the model layer. Eigen AI, at the underlying inference layer, reduces latency and costs through compiler and operator optimization, ensuring efficiency when large models are deployed at scale. Together, the three form the three major pillars of Nebius’s data ingress, model productization, and inference engine, making Token Factory a complete AI production system. Nebius defines its model as a four-layer architecture: from Bare Metal to Managed Cloud, then Managed Inference, and finally Agent Platform at the highest level—a business model that climbs upward from downstream hardware leasing toward upstream software services. Overall, this year’s market enthusiasm for Nebius has been justified to a considerable extent. The company has also been actively working toward becoming a defining company of the AI era, and it has received recognition from many Wall Street institutions. Many investors who are firmly bullish on NBIS’s future repeatedly cite the holdings of major institutions and NVIDIA’s investment as evidence. These are weak foundations, and they are also among the easiest reasons for investors to make mistakes. The most important consideration in determining whether a company is worth holding for the long term is whether its risk-reward structure is becoming increasingly robust, and whether its overall business architecture is continuously strengthening its ability to withstand risk. This is especially important in emerging industries. There are many opportunities to make money, and the key is the ability to manage risk. This is the fundamental reason why many companies in emerging industries ultimately fail. History provides countless examples, and the AI industry will be no exception. In fact, it may be even more extreme, because there has never been an industry with such a high risk-reward ratio, to the point that the temptation is so great that people are willing to take enormous risks. This problem exists throughout the entire Neocloud industry, but it is particularly severe at Nebius. I would summarize its dangers into five areas: First, its battlefield has been stretched too far, which will inevitably lead to an uneven allocation of resources and therefore affect the entire organization. Second, it has neither a reliable source of sustained positive cash flow nor a historically verifiable record of sustained success. Instead, its historical record contains more examples of failure. Third, the overall model is essentially a passive-pressure model in which commitments are made first and fulfilled later. This forces the company, during execution, to constantly juggle competing priorities and continuously allocate resources and attention toward short-term interests, moving it further and further away from its long-term objectives. Fourth, its financial structure is extremely dangerous. It is an accumulative and chain-reactive structure: it sells the future to obtain credit backing, then relies on flawless execution to continuously strengthen that credit, thereby creating a flywheel. Within this credit loop, there is no hard asset serving as the foundation. Instead, the company hopes to establish the foundation of credit through repeated cycles. Before that foundation is built, any medium-sized shock could potentially bring the entire cycle to a halt. Fifth, the excessive number of third-party partnerships significantly reduces the probability of successful execution, especially on the engineering side. Overall, NBIS was insufficiently prepared to enter this new AI industry. Although it has established ambitious objectives and corresponding mechanisms for achieving them, it remains highly passive and inexperienced across many critical areas, particularly in dealing with laws and regulations. Its overall model is extremely fragile and dangerous. A disruption in one part can affect the entire system. It is a structure in which positive feedback is difficult to establish, while negative feedback tends to reinforce itself. This is the truly dangerous aspect of Nebius. This is not a single risk, but a cumulative and compounded risk. In this article, I will try to remain as objective and neutral as possible and examine NBIS’s risks from the perspective of corporate operations and the development of emerging industries. I spent a long time preparing the research for this article, and there is a great deal of material. I have tried to condense it as much as possible and focus only on the key points. Let us examine the five issues above in greater detail. Regarding the Excessively Long Front NBIS is essentially a small-scale version of a hyperscale design. Whether it is its TOKEN FACTORY or its Fourth Cloud concept, both are modeled after hyperscale enterprises. But NVIDIA is building AI FACTORIES through a coordinated group-army approach, while Amazon’s AWS has an extremely solid foundation. Across the AI industry chain, from infrastructure to full-stack software services, NBIS has become involved in almost everything. Its production line is extremely long, and there are many areas requiring investment and attention. Although its actual operating plan places a heavy emphasis on moving toward the upper software and technology layers, and divides the business into four architectural layers, the reality is that its current revenue and future growth depend overwhelmingly on the infrastructure layer. Its software technology stack is still under construction and development and requires continuous investment. Yet NBIS itself is still a startup without a stable source of cash flow, while it is spending heavily to acquire even higher-risk startups. The money spent acquiring Eigen AI effectively bought a team of just over 20 technical personnel, at more than $30 million per person. Although people are potentially the most valuable investment, the risks are correspondingly high. The entire AI industry is evolving dynamically. Although Eigen AI is first-rate within its field, there remains enormous uncertainty as to whether it can ultimately become a truly large-scale business. This kind of acquisition is something that companies such as Meta and Google can afford to do. Even if it ultimately fails completely, it would not cause meaningful damage to them. But for NBIS, if Eigen AI fails to generate the expected value—or even performs only moderately—the impact will not be small. Because its resources are insufficient to support everything simultaneously, it will inevitably lose in competition. AI is different from industries of the past. It requires extremely heavy capital investment. To do this business well, there is no way around infrastructure. Nebius has clearly made considerable efforts, but the reality is severe. The 3 GW it has announced has already been recognized and priced into the market, but the actual execution is proving far more difficult than expected. Unlike IREN’s 5.8 GW of locked-in capacity, the majority of the capacity reported by NBIS remains uncertain in practical terms. Bringing it online will involve multiple situations that increase both costs and management attention. This is an unavoidable fact. Therefore, the original idea of attempting vertical integration on the infrastructure side has become increasingly difficult to expand in practice. In response, NBIS recently issued a partnership announcement, hoping that its software advantages could attract infrastructure owners to work with it. This move is clearly a position of weakness. Either no one will want to partner with it, or the economics of such partnerships will necessarily be poor. In such a hot and supply-constrained buyer’s market, high-quality infrastructure owners will inevitably demand substantial economic returns. NBIS’s software bargaining power is not exclusive. Competition in software is even more intense. Although this is NBIS’s strength, standing out requires continuous investment and even greater focus. It needs to build credibility through user workloads accumulated by its software products. Unfortunately, in order to obtain credibility through partnerships with hyperscalers, NBIS has sold almost all of its already extremely constrained capacity to hyperscalers in the form of low-priced bare metal, and has even overcommitted that capacity. Its software capabilities therefore cannot capture market share through products. Instead, they can only gain visibility through benchmarks and future-oriented narratives. In such an intensely competitive market, this means that NBIS is actually losing the window of opportunity to build a genuine software advantage. NBIS has effectively fallen into a decision-making dilemma created by stretching its battlefield too far. Moreover, it has already become constrained by overcommitting its own capacity in order to secure hyperscaler orders, making it difficult to concentrate either its attention or its financial resources on developing the software capabilities where it actually has an advantage. Regarding Cash Flow Although NBIS currently has substantial cash, most of that cash comes from external financing sources such as convertible bonds, NVIDIA equity investment, and customer prepayments rather than free cash flow generated by the business itself. Prepayments are essentially liabilities that must be fulfilled in the future. Once construction schedules or utilization rates deviate from expectations, the pressure will be transmitted directly to the balance sheet. Oracle provides a useful reference point here. Before its large-scale investment in AI, Oracle was a high-quality company with very stable free cash flow growth. Because it has become excessively aggressive, Oracle’s credit rating has now deteriorated significantly and it is only one step away from danger. And this is still a company with a healthy cash-generating business. NBIS, by contrast, is dealing with businesses that require continuous and massive capital investment. Bare-metal compute sales are doing reasonably well, but margins are limited. Relative to the amount of investment required, it is difficult for this business to generate positive cash flow. The key issue is that the businesses currently capable of generating cash flow are highly uncertain. NBIS does not have a stable, historically validated source of positive cash flow that is insulated from this uncertainty. Historically, it has also been an unsuccessful company. Its search and autonomous-driving businesses were eventually abandoned or marginalized for various reasons. Its history demonstrates that it is a team with very strong technical capabilities but very poor operating capabilities. This weakness is also becoming visible in its development within the AI industry. It missed the window to secure high-quality infrastructure and power reserves. It is now missing the window to use its limited power capacity to cultivate its own software workload capabilities. It used scarce GPU capacity to build today’s revenue, but it did not use that scarce GPU capacity to cultivate tomorrow’s software moat. I have never really understood why NBIS did not take advantage of such a strong rise in its stock price to establish an ATM program and balance its funding risk. Is it truly intoxicated by the narrative that it can achieve rapid growth without dilution? Regarding the Passive-Pressure Model The passive-pressure model means that the company’s required resources and conditions have not yet been fully secured, but future commitments have already been turned into contractual orders. This is a dangerous and harmful approach. Although it can bring benefits, the disadvantages are enormous by comparison. The biggest problem is that it can undermine the execution of the company’s medium- and long-term objectives. When these commitments cannot be fulfilled, the negative effects propagate through a chain reaction. For a company that has clearly identified software as an area in which it intends to become strong, it will nevertheless be forced to devote the majority of its resources to ensuring the delivery of relatively low-level bare-metal services. As a result, its future strategic options become severely constrained. That could become a major strategic mistake. For software to develop genuine competitiveness, the process must be: continuous trial and error → rapid iteration → acquiring users → collecting feedback → improving the product → expanding the user base again. Is NBIS actually following this path? Not at all. Its valuable infrastructure is currently still in question when it comes to completing the Microsoft and Meta orders. Regarding the Financial Structure The current credit NBIS has built is not based on repeated iterations of its core products. Instead, it has been established by selling its future bare-metal computing capacity in advance and through investment and partnerships from hyperscalers. This is the most deceptive aspect of the model. Many investors use this as the basis for their confidence while overlooking the company’s most important real business progress. NBIS’s financial fragility comes from using future commitments as the foundation of current credit, even though those commitments have neither been fulfilled nor independently verifiable in advance. Its collateral is not an asset that has already generated cash flow, but capacity that has yet to be built. Of the more than $40 billion in contracted revenue from Microsoft and Meta, a substantial portion corresponds to future batches at Highridge and Vineland. Their value depends on execution certainty rather than on the underlying assets themselves. Once a key site is delayed, a default will not appear as an isolated event. It will become coupled and spread throughout the financing system. SLA penalties are merely the surface-level consequence. The real shock comes from the market repricing the expected fulfillment rate of the company’s overall contracted revenue. Financing costs rise, funding channels tighten, and this further delays the availability of construction financing for other sites, creating a self-reinforcing negative feedback loop. An even bigger problem is that there is no buffer in the timeline. Its free cash flow is not expected to turn positive until 2029. Before that point, the company will remain continuously dependent on external financing. Any crack in confidence will therefore be amplified precisely during its most vulnerable period. This creates a sharp contrast with IREN’s structure. IREN builds assets first and then expands. The cost is incurred upfront and is relatively predictable. NBIS, by contrast, makes commitments first and fulfills them later. The cost is rolling and revealed afterward. Once one commitment fails, the market’s confidence valuation of the entire system can be repriced downward simultaneously rather than simply adjusting the valuation of an individual project. Regarding the Excessive Reliance on Third-Party Partnerships Every critical component has been outsourced to third parties with no long-term track record of working together. On the construction side, the Vineland project is being undertaken by DataOne, a company only separated from BSO in November 2024. Its only comparable prior experience was the acquisition and refurbishment of two existing sites in France, each around the 15 MW scale. That is not remotely the same scale or complexity as building a 300 MW+ flagship project from scratch with behind-the-meter power generation. On the energy-equipment side, NBIS is using Bloom Energy’s SOFC fuel-cell solution, replacing the originally planned gas-turbine solution midway through the process. Bloom itself has already experienced a verifiable material delay on a comparable-scale project for Oracle due to the rejection of pipeline permits. The regulatory coordination issues are even more significant. The Vineland project depends on the local planning commission, while the Highridge project depends on the approval schedules of multiple independent third parties, including PPL and PJM. Any delay at any one of these stages can directly block the overall project. The execution consequence here is not simply the addition of individual risks. It is the compounding probability of coordination failure. Look at NBIS’s infrastructure situation: A combination that has never previously worked together — a new construction contractor (DataOne) + a new technology-path supplier (Bloom) + independent regulatory bodies (NJDEP, local planning commissions) + the client itself (Nebius’s first major self-built U.S. project). This new combination must coordinate under an extremely compressed timeline. Such a “multi-party new combination” is itself an independent and unobservable source of failure probability. There is no historical data from which to estimate it. It can only reduce the overall completion probability rather than leave it unchanged. Nebius has currently established a market narrative as a full-stack technology powerhouse with strong software capabilities, and the market has given it a high valuation. In reality, however, it faces a structural problem: its contracted data-center capacity has been almost completely occupied by the enormous Microsoft and Meta orders, and there are already clear signs of “overcommitted capacity.” Given its current construction capabilities, supply-chain control, and technology reserves, simply completing these two orders on schedule is already an extreme challenge. Public data shows a huge gap between Nebius’s contracted capacity and its actual online capacity. The company has disclosed contracted power exceeding 3.5 GW, with a year-end target above 4 GW, of which more than 75% is reportedly owned capacity. But the amount of capacity that has actually been energized and is capable of generating revenue still presents a major challenge. The main projects that have entered substantive development are the Highridge campus in Pennsylvania and the Independence campus in Missouri, each at approximately 1.2 GW. Even this most “hard” 1.2 GW is highly dependent on utility infrastructure upgrades by companies such as PPL, including the construction of new substations, reconstruction of transmission lines, and expansion of 230 kV lines. These are external engineering chains that Nebius cannot fully control. Any delay in permitting, equipment delivery, or construction will directly delay energization. Yet the market has already priced 3.5–4 GW as a “certain foundation for growth.” The fulfillment pressure created by the $40 billion in orders is directly squeezing the development space for its self-defined “full-stack technology.” First, management and engineering resources are highly concentrated on physical delivery. Building several gigawatts of capacity on schedule, particularly under the technical requirements of high-density liquid cooling and the latest GPU clusters, is itself an enormous engineering challenge. Any delay will affect revenue recognition and customer relationships. Second, the penalty for execution failure is extremely high. Hyperscaler contracts typically contain strict SLAs, delay penalties, and even termination provisions. Once a breach occurs, the damage is not merely financial. It can severely damage the company’s creditworthiness and affect financing and subsequent customer relationships. Against a backdrop of highly leveraged expansion, this risk is particularly dangerous. Capital and attention are also engaged in an obvious zero-sum game. Nebius’s annual capital expenditure of roughly $20–25 billion consumes almost all available funding, while the software teams it has acquired — Tavily, Eigen AI, Clarifai, and others — themselves require continuous R&D investment, talent retention, and product integration in order to become genuinely competitive. The current survival line is whether it can deliver physical capacity on time. Software therefore naturally becomes a secondary priority. Insufficient investment and slower integration are almost inevitable. Nebius’s high-growth story is built on extreme execution pressure and external dependencies, leaving very little room for error. The lack of a stable, time-tested positive free-cash-flow business makes it particularly vulnerable to any deviation in execution pace or change in financing conditions. This means that NBIS’s current model is essentially betting on an extremely optimistic scenario: AI compute shortages remain severe for long enough; it converts contracted capacity into high-utilization revenue on schedule; the software layer rapidly develops customer stickiness and high margins; and the financing window remains open continuously. If any one of these elements is delayed or the external environment changes, the risk can jump directly from “slower growth” to a “survival issue.” Therefore, the bullish views on NBIS are not without foundation. But the reality is that the path it is actually taking is increasingly diverging from its stated plan that software should be the core of its development. The four-layer architecture it talks about is supposedly a climb toward higher valuation and higher gross margins. In actual execution, however, it is becoming increasingly trapped by the overcommitted orders it has already signed. This disconnect will become increasingly obvious.

• 
  IronDog of Écosse (@irondog55) reported 8 minutes ago

  @pcgamer No. Lag is a thing. Especially in competitive games with people who ratehack. A story as old as time. Can't hit what the netcode cant see...(Original MW2, Battlefield, Delta Force) Absolutely moronic take w/ @da

• 
  Ghostkillah (@Ghostkillah6) reported 9 minutes ago

  @Battlefield To be really honest with you guys @Battlefield, I played @WARDOGS closed alpha and had no issue no bug no lag… Your game is out since year and I keep having some bad lag spike on the new map(9800x3d/4070ti) I never lag in any other game! I don’t think I will ever replay to Bf6!

• 
  Iain Reid (@realiainreid) reported 11 minutes ago

  Sylvan’s final advantage may not have been an accident. By then, the Evil King may already know his kingdom is lost. His problem is no longer simply defeating Sylvan. It is succession. George has become dangerous: compromised, associated with the failed regime, carrying decades of secrets, and increasingly capable of discovering what his father actually did to him. Meanwhile, the King may have secretly created an unauthorized replacement heir through the breeding program. So he rearranges the competitive environment. George believes his father is sending him into the final battle to defeat Sylvan. But his father may know that Sylvan’s strongest period of influence is still waiting at the end. George isn’t being sent to win. He’s being sent somewhere his father expects him to be destroyed. The plan is elegant: George attacks Sylvan, Sylvan’s overwhelming advantage arrives, George absorbs responsibility for the failed campaign, Sylvan retaliates, the Throwaway Prince disappears, and the King clears the succession for his secret heir. He even gets Sylvan to perform the disposal for him. Except Sylvan refuses. He notices that George is still operating inside a manufactured reality while the father continues making the actual decisions, choreographing the signs, refusing negotiation, and encouraging attacks long after victory has become impossible. Suddenly the environment starts revealing something very different. Not that George attacked Sylvan and lost. But that the King knowingly sent his own son into an unwinnable fight and kept telling him he could win. The environment designed to process George begins documenting command responsibility instead. And the Throwaway Prince acquires its darkest possible meaning: George wasn’t merely raised as an expendable heir. His father may have built the final battlefield specifically so somebody else would throw him away.

• 
  MiGRe ■□■ (@MiGRe08) reported 15 minutes ago

  @MoltisantiGerry @JimSpenceDundee When teams like dundee utd have no or minimal Scottish players, nevermind youth players, there's a problem. Spfl battlefield and league structure means no real pathway so when England come knocking with offers of £5k a week, to be a jersey filler or not, not many will say no.

• 
  Budbx (@budbx90) reported 16 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Bring back rush! fix the ******* TTK! Fix the vehicle balance! This game still feels and plays like ****!

• 
  Smart Pig (@SmartPig2150) reported 16 minutes ago

  Ok. Here is legit my biggest problem with BattleField 6. My biggest singular problem. Here goes: Match Inconsistency. I don't mean between matches, I mean one match, start to finish. I can start an escalation match, go 15-1. Climb to 30-5. We're on match point. Then, out of nowhere, I can't win a gunfight to save my life. 1v1, 3v1 my favor, not a single one. We end up losing the match 2-3., and I'm 33-20. It also happens in reverse. Start the Match, I'm getting my *** beat. I'm maybe 12-11(its rare I go neg anymore but I'm not a god so it does happen), and the other team is at match point. SUDDENLY I can't LOSE gun fights. Even fights I know for a fact I should not have won(I got caught off guard, I turned on em, it was 3v1 my disadvantage). We end up winning 3-2. Sometimes it turns into a back and forth slug fest over match point and thats kinda fun but still, this pattern persists. And I think its artificial, and I don't like it. I want to win FAIRLY. I want to LOSE FAIRLY TOO. It doesn't feel like thats happening. My "hard fought" Victories are cheap and hollow, and my Brutal Defeats feel like theft. I'm not amazing at the game. This season I'm better than last season. The improvement is there. But I can't tell if its because the game is boosting me or if its holding me back anymore.

• 
  haughtsauce (@_haughtsauce_) reported 18 minutes ago

  @NoVa_EFT @SkiiMaskTimmy @AirwingMarine 10 minutes to get to a battlefield youre delusional. you can build all kinds of anti air **** we never once had an issue wth this and im still only like level 13 or 14. How long did you play for? even on the 4 wheeler youre in battle in 2 minutes much quicker for others.

• 
  Yogogo (@yoyofightthee) reported 20 minutes ago

  @viviglittr @JaegerTwice That’s fair. I will say, I do mostly agree on the Toya getting back up thing. Although part of that (at least in-universe) is because the plan to take down Toya was a REALLY flimsy one, as Shoto was basically on his own with his only advantage being his ice and new move. It felt like the story sometimes just made it so some plans were worse than others to contrive a reason for things to play out in this way. As for Toya’s fate, tbh it depends. The overall issue with Toya’s ending is the tone deafness and trying to have its cake and eat it too (this applies to the Todoroki family ending as a whole tbh). Just the concept of him being kept alive creates inherent problems. The idea is that Toya is being kept alive specifically to gain what he wants before death, a chance to speak with his family. The issue however, is that the circumstances of Toya’s condition now flat out contradict that sentiment. He can barely speak, only able to sputter out and cough a few sentences for a few minutes before being stored away again. Maybe if we got to see some of these visits and what exactly Toya would get out of them, then this writing would actually come together, but as it is, it’s a blatant discrepancy that isn’t addressed by the narrative. And as a result, the bittersweet feeling is completely ruined. And the fact that the family have this smiley scene right after really just makes it seem like the story is at best rushing things unnaturally, and at worst implying they’re 100% okay with what’s happening to Toya, which doesn’t suit their characters (and that’s of course not taking into account that there ARE absolutely ways to at least try and save him that the series is continently glossing over to contrive this ending). If the story wasn’t going to go into detail in this epilogue, then Toya likely should have just died on the battlefield in a similar manner to Toga, in that he gets to say everything he wanted to, have the soba exchange, and then possibly die with a sense of peace. Obviously it would need to be reworked a bit, but I just don’t see the merit in keeping him alive if it’s going to be THIS cruel and apathetic. Plus, it allows the Todofam to actually have scenes mourning Toya which the series is utterly devoid of (which is incredibly odd since I think part of what makes Toga’s aftermath work so well is that we dedicate time to Uraraka grieving her. Deku and Shigaraki don’t get enough either but they at least get more to work with, especially when compared to Toya). That, or if we REALLY want to keep Toya alive to die a slow death, then it’s possible to just, give him a normal hospital bed and contrive it so they were able to heal his wounds just enough for him to not be preserved in a tube (take them restoring Spinner offscreen for example). Or if we REALLY want to keep the tube for whatever reason, then give him a weird sci fi wheelchair thing and allow him to at least spend the rest of his days with his family in a way that’s actually substantial. Obviously I’m mostly spitballing here, but the core point I’m making is that as is, Toya’s ending fails on an in-universe and narrative level due to how little it does. It wants to hold him accountable for his actions in a way that would ideally kill him, but it also wants him to gain some kind of peace to maintain the bittersweet narrative it’s going for, but since it’s unable to fully commit to either, what we get is a narratively confused mess that feels inherently bleak while just pretending not to be, which COULD come together if the story actually showed the merits of it, but of course that doesn’t happen.

• 
  PenguinFriendForever (@PenguinFriendF2) reported 20 minutes ago

  Penguin says this is in memory to all of those who has been left alone at the beach due to the boat issues in Battlefield 6 🫡👉🌹 Such issues has led to that Penguin primarily spent time playing Hagental Base this far in Season 4, instead of the naval action. Patrol boat only having 2 seats?

• 
  Frank (@Cowboy6482) reported 21 minutes ago

  @MAC_Arms 7.62x51 as a personal issue weapon would be silly, for the reasons you stated. But, 6.8x51 chose super high pressures, which is the problem I have. Nothing against the high pressures themselves, pressure makes bullets go. My problem is the increased heat/frictions. Battlefield reliability is the concern. If metallurgy were to negate that, I would have no concerns, but it's my understanding that we haven't gotten to that point, yet. 6.8x43 keeps pressures in the normal range, while increasing performance at all of the distances it's expected to perform. Once you get past ~500m, it's time to step up your cartridge anyway. That's where a DM with a 300WM would come into play. 6.8x43 would fill all squad level machine guns, and a majority of mounted. 7.62x51 is still excellent for minigun and other mounted belt feds where more hate needs to be applied. 6.8x51 can fill multiple roles, but, heat is your enemy for sustained fire. It's a cool cartridge with excellent paper performance. Is it battlefield ready?

• 
  WAR MACHINE (@TTV_WAR_MACHINE) reported 22 minutes ago

  @nirot_ You should see Conquest in Battlefield if you’re not familiar with it. Large scale Dom with more capture points. Same issue. Guys going for the furthest flags all the time and it completely ***** up the map flow.

• 
  Make Germany Great Again (@Great_GER_Again) reported 23 minutes ago

  critical battlefield, with Iranian-aligned Shiite militias deeply embedded in the country’s security system. If those three networks were substantially weakened, Iran’s regional position would be dramatically worse. But here is the problem for Washington: This alliance does