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:

• 
  Paul Haddrell (@HaddrellPaul) reported 50 seconds ago

  @RadioGenoa @waltervet74 There is only one way we fix this and its us Brits to sort this out ourselves. Nobody will help us, we have to fix this ourselves, on the battlefield of life.

• 
  Richard Ledbetter (@509_slowM5) reported 2 minutes ago

  @Battlefield I’ve played 3 games where I experienced a massive visual glitch where my screen goes crazy and I can’t see anything on the royale modes!! I have less then 5 hours in this game and can’t get a refund cause I’m on ps5 you guys are selling slop !!!

• 
  XpertFusion (AKA MovieFusion) (@xpertfusion3) reported 2 minutes ago

  The number one thing Call of Duty needs to look into fixing is preventing players from leaving lobbies... This has been a big issue in a lot of CODs, but feels like a bigger issue in BO7, probably because of reduced SBMM and the higher skill gap. But obviously I don't want their solution to be to bring back strict SBMM, reduce the skill gap, or nerf the scorestreaks (all these solutions would suck) They need to find other ways to keep players in the match. I'll offer a few ideas here... • Reward Incentives Black Ops 3 did this, where you would receive more crypto-keys for staying in the full match than you would if you left the game early. This got many players to stay through the whole match, even if the other team was winning. I would love a new COD game to add an in-game currency that's earnable for free so they could do this, but perhaps they can setup some kind of system to where you have a chance at earning a random item from a random bundle as a "Post-Match Bonus" • Punishments I feel like people wouldn't like this solution, but I wouldn't be against small punishments (like locking you out of playing for 30 minutes) if you leave too many matches in a row. It would obviously give you a warning if you are close to that. • Make the game fun, even when you are doing bad... This is something Call of Duty has always struggled with. COD is not really that fun when you are doing bad. Maps being more interactive, more visually interesting, more dynamic, I think helps with this. Games like Battlefield can still be fun when you are doing bad, probably because of how cinematic the battles can be. Crazy map events help with that. COD should do more of that. • Rewards for Winning Games Even just rewarding players for winning games could help. People tend to leave lobbies when they are dying a lot, not necessarily when they are losing by a lot (happens in both situations though). Maybe give HUGE rewards for underdog wins, or making a huge comeback. • Persistent Lobby Bonuses Of course, this only works when lobbies are persistent, which should stay in every game going forward. But you should be given XP bonuses or other rewards for staying in the same lobby for multiple games in a row. This would significantly help with the social aspect of the game. • Harder to Earn Scorestreaks As I said, Streaks should NOT be nerfed, but I do think they are slightly too easy to get in BO7 (probably because of all the ways to get additional score). Scorestreaks should stay, and they SHOULD be loopable, but they should just cost a bit more to get, or there should be a few less ways to get additional score (or at least those ways shouldn't give you as much score) Just please, do anything EXCEPT for bringing back strict SBMM, nerfing streaks, or lowering the skill gap!! @InfinityWard @Treyarch @CallofDutyCM

• 
  J (@lonew0lfmode) reported 8 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Please deal with the PC cheaters who go 50/0 and act like they're good at the game. It's insane. Also fix ttk, I was somehow leaving enemies with 20< health every time I shot at them, and dying the second they looked at me. Thanks.

• 
  Timbog (@niwdoogpt) reported 8 minutes ago

  @GrayConnolly He is a liar. Cherry picking data to suit his narrative. He will not acknowledge that the mass migration mistake is a big part of the problem so he has shifted gears to deflect, to blame, to create an enemy. Intergenerational equity is his new battlefield.

• 
  On The Contrary (@darklighter226) reported 11 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Did they fix the bullet hit detection yet?

• 
  symplyTonbra (@SymplyTonbra) reported 14 minutes ago

  @Fortune__ai Lavabending easily. Changing the entire battlefield into molten rock is completely broken

• 
  MoMo (@Mo_problems3) reported 14 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Fix your game

• 
  Eunice Omeire (@EuniceOmeire) reported 14 minutes ago

  Some people don’t want help. They want access to YOUR kindness. My secondary school classmate got married right after NYSC and was blessed with triplets — two boys and a girl. Beautiful, right? Not exactly. Her husband lives abroad. Money wasn’t the problem, but raising three toddlers alone was slowly draining the life out of her. Her dreams of getting a job and furthering her studies had been put on hold, and she was hanging on by a thread. The triplets were a handful. By the time they turned two and started playgroup, she only had a few hours of peace before bringing them home and stepping into another battlefield. Then there was her neighbor. This woman had twin boys, a husband living with her, and a younger sister at home. Yet almost every day, she would send her twins to my friend’s flat and disappear for hours. My friend would feed them, watch them, carry them around, and even take them along when picking up her own triplets from school. Five children. One exhausted woman. Every single day. When I visited and saw what was happening, my blood boiled. One public holiday, as usual, she sent the twins over. This time, I locked the door. The boys knocked. I didn’t open. They cried. I still didn’t open. Their mother eventually came and took them back. The next day she came personally and said she wanted to attend a wedding and needed somewhere to leave the twins. I asked her: “Your husband is at home. Your sister is at home. Why is the woman raising triplets your preferred babysitter?” The look she gave me could have curdled milk. By Monday, I had enough. I told her plainly: “Stop sending your children here. If anything happens to this woman from stress, will you raise her triplets?” From that day, she, her husband, and her sister stopped greeting my friend. Complete malice. Apparently, setting boundaries is now a criminal offense. They remained angry until my friend moved into her newly completed house. Till today, I still wonder: Was I wrong for stepping in, or was the neighbor shamelessly taking advantage of a struggling mother? Because some people hear “kindness” and immediately think “free childcare.”

• 
  ✨ (@in_gyden) reported 15 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."

• 
  Zachary Davidson (@Ryangofett_2490) reported 18 minutes ago

  @stevedeleeuw @Battlefield Is this a Battle Royale issue?

• 
  Robe Joa (@RobeJoa) reported 18 minutes ago

  @Battlefield One of the support soldier assignments is broken. The one where you have to dispense ammo pouches. The counter won’t go up (I play on PS5) idk if it’s happening in the background or not but it’s not moving.

• 
  charles okoroleju (@carlbira02) reported 18 minutes ago

  The Weight of Silence Part 1: The Perfect Illusion In the bustling city of Lagos, Tunde Adeyemi appeared to have everything a man could want—a beautiful wife, two children, and a respectable job. To outsiders, his life seemed enviable. Behind closed doors, however, his home was a battlefield. His wife, Bisi Adeyemi, had developed a habit of turning every conversation into criticism. "The neighbor just bought a new SUV. When will you stop embarrassing me?" "Look at my friend's husband. He took her to Dubai. What have you ever done for me?" Nothing Tunde did was enough. He paid the rent, school fees, groceries, electricity bills, and medical expenses. Yet every evening he returned home to complaints and demands. Bisi refused to work despite having a university degree. "I didn't marry you to suffer," she would say whenever Tunde suggested she start a business or seek employment. Over time, Tunde stopped arguing. He simply endured. Part 2: Cracks in the Foundation The pressure mounted. To satisfy Bisi's endless demands, Tunde began taking loans. A loan for a bigger apartment. A loan for expensive furniture. A loan for designer clothes she wanted to wear to weddings and parties. His salary could no longer keep up. Collection agents started calling. His savings disappeared. Yet Bisi remained blind to the danger. One evening Tunde sat at the dining table studying his bank account. The numbers terrified him. They were drowning. "Bisi, we need to cut expenses." She laughed. "That's your problem. Figure it out." Something inside him broke that night. Continues tomorrow

• 
  Bobby b (@Bobbybananas55) reported 24 minutes ago

  @EA_DICE @Respawn fix your ******* game for ps5 literally can’t play #redsec on @Battlefield because it looks like a flashlight everywhere

• 
  Velocity (@speedylilguy) reported 32 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Can you fix hit reg