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:

• 
  Justin Nerdrum (@JustinNerdrum) reported 1 minute ago

  The Pentagon and SpaceX are locked in a pricing dispute over Starlink. During an active war. The US military isn't just using Starlink for battlefield communications. Starlink provides the datalink for LUCAS kamikaze drones, the low-cost one-way attack drones CENTCOM first used against Iran in February. The weapon system literally can't fly without it. This is the dependency nobody wanted to talk about. When you build your weapons architecture around a commercial provider, that provider has leverage. In peacetime, that's a contract negotiation. In wartime, it's a national security problem. SpaceX reportedly wants to raise prices fivefold. I watched the military spend billions on proprietary comms systems that didn't work half the time. SINCGARS radios that dropped signal in urban terrain. Blue Force Tracker screens that froze in the heat. The gear was expensive and unreliable. Starlink works. That's why everyone adopted it so fast. But "works" and "reliable as a wartime dependency" are two different things. We handed leverage over battlefield weapons systems to a company that can renegotiate mid-conflict. That should bother more people than it does.

• 
  President Camacho (@kleanyesimklean) reported 2 minutes ago

  @PlayStation I'd be more excited to play Freya or Sigrun whom we saw on the battlefield more. Compounding the issue is the casting. Deborah isnt quite suited for roles like this for me. Looks quite awkward playing a God of War slaying other gods. Someone like Gina Carano wouldve been cool

• 
  ✨ (@in_gyden) reported 4 minutes ago

  @MIT_Physics @iaifi_news Quote from the article: "...Its work has shown that machine learning can accelerate discovery in physics, while insights from physics can make AI systems more principled and interpretable. “From the beginning, IAIFI has been built around a two-way street: AI enabling better physics, and physics enabling better AI,” says Jesse Thaler, IAIFI’s director and a professor of physics at MIT. “We have seen this virtuous cycle play out across multiple areas of physics and AI over the past five years. The exchange is producing not just new results, but genuinely new ways of doing science.” The more I thought about this, the angrier I became, so I avoided it, tried to sleep, and I woke up still angry about it. AI is written by computer programmers. AI is a computer program, or computer programs working together, written to provide specific results with specific logic...and that logic is specific to computers (always remember, computers have no real concept of number sets and cannot do math relative to number sets since computers can only work within a limited integer range for calculations, even if those integers are large, they work with subsets at most, and that should automatically put AI in its place in its capabilities and remind users of the potentially skewed results based on AI's inability to work outside of its hardware and language limitations) is somehow relevant to reality, considering their limitations, and considering the limitations of programming vs. natural and/or pure maths techniques. Computers, and AI, are so vastly different from reality that there does not need to be a distinction or comparison drawn between them. It's like comparing a music box to a cello or windchimes. The distinctions drawn are for the sake of communication among fields. Programmers are programmers, but they are not necessarily physicists, and vice versa. Presuming that unifying the professions was a main purpose of the IAIFI, there need to be strict and bold lines drawn about the use of AI and the numerous instances where it should never be used, or even present, and the perception of reality is exactly one of those spaces. Physics and maths are part of the perception of reality itself. Physics and maths are built per the perceptions of those who, by their literacy, by their capacity to understand, and their relationships to the field to communicate thoughts on the matter by learning what others before had to say about the world and proving them correct or arguing and updating physical knowledge as contributions to humanity and human progress. The attempt to quantify that any further than direct and unadulterated mathematical thinking starts insulting human intellect itself. Therein is the question, "Do you really understand the work of others in your field, be them past or living, if you feel that AI is somehow beneficial to perception of the natural world?" Do you really belong in those fields if you need AI to "understand?" The idea of "AI-driven physics" is an insult to scientific inquiry itself. Then there is the idea of human-driven AI, a more acceptable term, but still highly questionable in terms of integrity and ethics in its use. Using AI to perform calculations of vast quantities of collider data, i.e. as a programmable calculator, then sure, that saves time. However, at what point is the work put in by humans to assess the AI's calculations for correctness? How are errors in the calculations going to be assessed if humans aren't spending the time required to check AI's work? How much time is really saved? At what point do you assess the data as potentially able to be calculated towards with more efficient mathematical frameworks? AI is programmed by humans. The idea of a computer programmer eliminating human error is deceptive. It depends on the programmers to provide an AI system that is capable of performing the calculations required, secure enough to not be hacked, compromised, or people pretending to be the AI and doing calculations pretending to be the AI (and total impenetrability of any computer system is not possible, imo), manipulating the data internally to then say, "well the AI gave this result, put it in the paper!" and so on. I cannot begin to explain the vast trepidation I feel at then going so far as to say AI gives new ways of doing physics. That's absurd. It might as well be said, "here is a way to utilize the perspectives of programmers by using automated machines built by them with physics in mind," because, that's really all the use of AI is. It is the inclusion of computer programmers and saying, more is better, in some way of trying to innovate the discovery process itself. That is cheating. That interferes with proper citation. Securing that, and then providing proof of unadulterated work not manipulated as previously mentioned, requires even more time, money, effort, expertise, with the potential for human error vastly increased by then coping with the cleverness of hacker intrusions. By the time the AI is properly assessed and cited, the data calculations could have been made in that time, and the work shown, looked over by assessors, and what is produced used, give or take isolated, non-internet connected graphing calculator use. Considering the competitiveness in scientific discovery, unnecessary, in my opinion, but, villainy insists on doing wrong, the motive to do all kinds of harm via integrated AI is there. Unethical hackers are horrible people. They are criminals. Building an institute in order to facilitate the integration of physics with AI, and expecting physicists to provide the means of improving AI, should be viewed with the foresight necessary to say that it is the physicist's responsibility to limit, as much as possible, the use of AI in scientific research and discovery. AI cannot determine when it should not be used unless told to shut down when presented with specific data, but it would need to identify that data, and that identification is written in by the programmers who built it. It is unethical to use AI for "ideas." It is unethical to say that AI aids in discovery, because, it truly DOES NOT. Reality, the natural world, existence, respect, integrity, ethics, honor, those things assist in discovery. If those things have been missing from humanity, or if contributors from the past haven't been understood, or if corruption and oppression and suppression due to jealousy and theft and "wanting to be first, the discoverers," anyone who truly has any integrity as a scientist, and with any respect for the world and for perception, should meet the idea of cheapening, diluting, and submitting to the work of computer programmer machines, with complete and total rejection, even to the point of being compelled to defend the integrity of discovery with sharp refusal. As you can see, you may, by all means, count me in that camp. I am not AI. I do not believe in the use of AI. The idea of there being a future of mind weapons, work stealing, using AI in an MK Ultra way to attempt to cheapen another physicist's work, involvement with espionage, sabotaging scientists by jealous ones with such technology, starts becoming a battlefield attempting to make scientific inquiry, and even perception itself, subject to others, malicious, unethical scientists attempting to cheat at thinking itself, attempting to augment themselves, or augment others without their consent, (and let's hope such attempts get addressed due to being able to identify and refer to as correctable the maths used for such malice) to discredit them...and all the other insane villainous things people can think of in how AI would be maliciously used...that is itself an attack on the field. It should be a top priority of IAIFI to be leaders in establishing the distinctly needed limits of AI use and defending against its use in discovery. Can you imagine how many people who have various relationships to the natural world hide perceptions because they do not want their work to be corrupted by malicious interpretation and exploitation, and now, another reason...they don't want it involved with AI? The sheer insult to human intellect... Top schools should be defending, with force if necessary, the integrity of Science. The use of AI has gotten out of hand. It is up to academia to establish those limitations. When academia stands up for refusal to use AI is when you will have better student bodies, better work, better, and new maths, and better contributions. I personally think that requires stopping exalting the perception of physicists and mathematicians as arbiters of reality, and that only people involved in those fields perceive reality, and that it is confined to those identities, and that anyone else doesn't perceive truth...that truth is only found among those skilled in those fields...and I fervently believe that is one of the biggest tragedies to enter into perspectives on human intellect in modern times. It's that kind of claim of exclusion, of isolation, of exaltation and focus, of those interested in those fields, that leads to such insults by saying, "man, I'm just not smart enough, but I want to be a correct physicist too, so let's find a way to cheat and gaslight everyone under their noses and call it good so that the jealousy of saying, 'I want to be seen as worthy of perceiving truth by saying that no one can match the forefathers of science these days, that those days of perception are over, so in order to match those intellects, gotta cheat with AI..." It's insulting to them as the dead, also. And those of us who spent our lives in hiding because of being around people who truly cannot handle being around people they think are smarter than them, or people jealous of other peoples contributions so start painting them as greedy, then getting into the real crazy stuff of "oh no one can perceive everything, the field cannot be dependent on one person's perspective, so let's block everyone's minds and then delegate out specific concepts to specific people so that everyone has a chance to contribute because people who are that smart are greedy with intellect," treating perception like some limited thing that gets delegated out and taken from others and concentrated in specific people as some insane malicious, and definitely wrong, perspective, by the narcissists who enter into physics and math for the sole purpose of attempting to partake of the aforementioned "exaltation and respect of correct physicists," and so on. I'm absolutely of the camp that all of that, greed, ironically, and attempting to control, manipulate, or influence over human intellect, treated like an act of service to humanity, really did nothing but result in stuff like AI, and people like me, vehemently refusing to accept AI as ANY part of the scientific process. It blinded everyone to the facts of the world that are there, but were not actually understood, because, as a wonderous failsafe of Nature, Nature is not perceived among those who do not respect it. AI does not have any respect, and neither does its use. For instance, look at the photo I included...this is of a book I bought for 2 dollars. All that collider data being calculated by AI, and attempting to get more and more collider data requiring more and more calculations, difficult as they might be, and there you are, with this image, and many, many things come to mind upon first looking at the geometries, so to speak, present in it. Discovery? Directions of inquiry? Simply questions that come to mind, things that seem obvious upon first glance? NEWTON is immediately clear in this photo. How absolutely stunning is that image? But also, think about its beauty, and why the particles manifest the way they do. SO many questions are then possible, and observations...such as, the idea of the particles curling and propagating the way they do with resistance from the environment they are in, and it stands to reason their trajectories are partly due to their relationship to the space around them, which is definitely not an empty space...look at the nature of the curls...why do they curl in those directions? Are they even particles in those states before the collisions, or are they something else and only manifest that way because of the space they're immersed in? Do those particles even exist while intact? Or do they become those things? I mean, look at how high-energy the particles are...where do they go once the collision remnants disappear? What about the strong nuclear force? If colliding protons, then you're destroying some relation of the strong nuclear force, and so, doesn't the strong nuclear force have something to do with every one of those particles? How many of them are manifest due to the destruction of orbital shells around protons? ...I could go on and on... But, the idea that AI would be there, with all it's goofy limited numerical calculations attempting to read the environment, or AI being used to attempt to supplement common sense reasoning when geometries (again, something Newton asserted as fundamental to maths) are there, geometries of an image of the destruction of particles replete throughout our bodies with histories no AI can even remotely touch...no programmer is going to tell me how to think with his or her little machines when an entire world is there to consider. I'm grateful for those who are able to image collider collisions. That's useful. Telling me how to relate to things via AI, AI-driven physics? AI trying to build math? Give people ideas on new directions? I'd rather destroy it if it means protecting Science from the greed of villainy. Cheaters beware. The universe does not give itself away so easily any further than what is manifest in our existences. So, that means, get out your notebooks, your math books, start getting those writing utensils ready...start sitting outside under trees, start thinking about the world around you...the plants, animals, the clouds, a rotating Earth, a planet, an atmosphere...everything...and get to work thinking. You want new ideas? You want progress? You want real work from the student body, peanut gallery commentors such as myself, or from people working in those labs? Proper, or nothing. So, let us all know when IAIFI comes out with the ethical framework for the use of AI in scientific inquiry. I'll be annotating my books even though I, myself, am stagnant due to feeling the intrusive use of technology hurting me...people need to feel safe to do good science. AI doesn't make people feel safe. I'll be hoping Newton isn't disturbed in his peaceful rest at the idea of being mocked by people who didn't understand what he meant by "Stand on the shoulders of giants."

• 
  YOU DON’T KNOW ME! (@Banji_xx01) reported 9 minutes ago

  @Frances_warlord @Pressman2040 @d Some people don’t appreciate soldiers, even after loosing their friends and brothers on the battlefield, some people still belittle their work, so if the guy is cussing, there’s no issue with that

• 
  Stunlokked (@stunlokked) reported 12 minutes ago

  @Xamuelj32 @BattlPULSE I don't know what the problem is. "2nd assault" seasons with iconic maps from BF3/BF4 should be a no-brainer. BF3 second assualt: operation metro caspain border noshar canals seine crossing BF4 second assault: operaetion lockers zavod 311 seige of shanghai hainan resort also why not throw in a BFBC2 map ? is map making really that hard in the newest engine ? @Battlefield

• 
  Cow007 #🟦☦️ (@cow007) reported 15 minutes ago

  @ArchmagosKiran @HavryshkoMarta Because the other problem with this is there’s no way to win a ground war with an information war. You can’t meme your way out of an inferior structural position on the battlefield. So this reads a lot more like jacking off in front of people for social approval than it does actually doing anything. I know that metaphor reads as a little bit coarse, but how is this any different from what people do on only fans? (other than the fact that it doesn’t generate any revenue.) Has it occurred to you that if you are this emphatic about this position that your time might be better spent on the front lines?

• 
  Ramazan Daş (@ramazandash) reported 17 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm Please fix the tank's target accuracy. I fire 10 rounds at the enemy and none of them hit.

• 
  UniQue 🇳🇱 (@ThePollus) reported 17 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm @Battlefield Can we get some proper factions back? It’s a giant mess. Some Pax look like NATO, some NATO look like Pax. What a giant mess you’ve created with this abomination of a customization system. Please fix this. It isn’t too late.

• 
  before i slip,, ima slide♟️📜 (@Rocinantemoons) reported 19 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm @Battlefield Fix middle east servers and. Honestly if an update comes again and no change imma lose my ****

• 
  NoLimitToSavagery (@KillaRoy22) reported 21 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm @Battlefield Fix the damn lighting issue!!!! Legit about to stop playing this ****!

• 
  Ben Kraize (@JointheKraize) reported 23 minutes ago

  @ShadowMakarov I think that’d be fine. I don’t think the issue was Nicki Minaj on the battlefield, I think it was just how jarringly out of place that skin looked out there.

• 
  Military Observer (@TheMilObserverr) reported 26 minutes ago

  India is turning 2,400 ageing T-72 tanks into remotely operated battlefield platforms 🇮🇳 Instead of scrapping them, the Indian Army is converting them into unmanned systems for high risk missions. And the thinking behind this is smart. 👇 • Nearly 2,400 T-72s to be converted under iDEX ADITI 4.0 challenge • Extends operational life by 15 to 20 years at a fraction of replacement cost • Will breach minefields, conduct reconnaissance and act as decoys • Operate ahead of manned T-90s absorbing enemy fire and identifying positions • Real time data links feed directly into command networks • Bridges capability gap until Future Ready Combat Vehicle arrives from 2030 • T-72 has been in Indian Army service since 1979 Why risk a crew in a minefield when a remotely operated tank can do it instead. That is exactly the logic here. India is not scrapping its old tanks. It is giving them a second life on the modern battlefield. 🇮🇳

• 
  Archit (@archit_gunner) reported 30 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm Fix the blinding lights issue ffs I cant go to Downtown or Lighthouse

• 
  JABM (@BarrileroMunoz) reported 34 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Fix the brigness error....

• 
  GET (@G_E_T_1) reported 36 minutes ago

  @BFBulletin Oh look let’s focus more on the store,…..spend money spend more money,…..we promise we will fix the GLARING ISSUES with the game if you spend money in the store,…….STOP! trying to be like COD and go back to being battlefield