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:

• 
  Ryan (Prayer Garden) (@PrayerGarden) reported 2 minutes ago

  @4thOfJuly365 I personally think it's working fine. Considering how many people are part of it+ not farms..it's the town square of the world and I see both sides saying they are being censored. I believe that means they are right over target. People just tend to believe there content should get all the views. If everyone believes that then obviously some are gonna feel let down. I am here because I believe it's the battlefield of the digital world and I believe the Lord is allowing whatever I post to be seen by exactly who he wants to see it. While I do appreciate what you are doing and am a member...I just also believe X and what you are doing are 2 separate thing. I believe given enough time and growth (people) that you will see some of the issues and come to accept the way they(x) are working to fix them

• 
  Maris (@Nazumejud) reported 6 minutes ago

  The blizzard had buried the driveway beneath thick drifts, yet it could not hide the sight of Emma lying beside the porch steps, clutching Noah beneath her coat to keep him alive. One look at her frostbitten hands and exhausted eyes hurt more than every battlefield I had survived during the past eighteen months. For one horrifying moment, I feared I was already too late. I dropped my duffel bag and sprinted through the snow. “Emma!” Her eyes opened weakly. “Ethan?” She said my name as though she believed I was a dream. Noah’s faint cries barely rose above the howling wind. Emma had wrapped him in layers of her clothing, leaving her own arms and feet exposed to the cold. I tore off my military coat, wrapped it around them both, and lifted them into my arms. “How long have you been out here?” Emma tried to answer, but her teeth were chattering too violently. I reached the front door and twisted the handle. Locked. I pounded once. No one answered. Through the living-room window, I saw the glow of the fireplace. Shadows moved inside. Someone laughed. My family was warm while my wife and infant son were freezing to death outside. I stepped back and kicked the door beside the lock. The frame cracked. A second kick sent the door flying inward. Warmth spilled over us. So did the smell of roasted meat, expensive bourbon, and burning cedar. My father, Richard Cole, sat beside the fireplace holding a glass from the bottle I had saved for my homecoming. My mother, Diane, wore Emma’s favorite cream cashmere robe as though it belonged to her. My younger brother, Kyle, stretched across my couch with muddy boots resting on the coffee table Emma and I had chosen together. All three stared at me. My mother’s face lost its color. “Ethan?” she blurted. “We weren’t expecting you until Friday.” My return date had changed after a transport aircraft opened an earlier seat. I had kept it secret because I wanted to surprise Emma. Instead, I had surprised the people destroying her life. I carried my wife and child across the room. My father rose from his chair. “Put her back outside.” I stopped. “What did you say?” “She attacked your mother,” he replied. “She became hysterical when we explained the situation.” Emma buried her face against my shoulder. “They changed every lock,” she whispered. “They took my phone, my wallet, everything. They said the house belonged to them.” Kyle gave a careless shrug. “Legally, it does.” He nodded toward the wall above the fireplace. A framed property deed hung where Emma and I had once displayed our wedding portrait. My father’s name appeared beneath the description of my property. On the dining table sat mortgage documents, bank statements, legal notices, and a thick folder marked CUSTODY PETITION. My mother crossed her arms. “Emma became unstable while you were deployed. We had to protect your assets and your son.” “You left them outside in a blizzard.” “She refused to cooperate,” my father said. No anger showed in his face. That frightened me more than shouting would have. I had seen men justify terrible actions with the same calm expression. They did not think of themselves as cruel. They believed they had the right to decide who deserved safety. I carried Emma upstairs. My mother followed. “You cannot take the baby,” she said. “Our attorney advised us to keep Noah away from her.” I turned so quickly that she stepped backward. “Come near my son again, and the police will be the least of your problems.”….

• 
  EcstasyDesignz (@EcstasyDegen) reported 8 minutes ago

  @Coachie01 I knew someone was going to question Ivar. His intelligence is more strategic than the others. Put them in a battlefield situation rather than a heist or prison, and suddenly Ivar becomes a very serious problem.

• 
  Hugo Navarro (@HugoNavarroPer2) reported 9 minutes ago

  I tested the most promising counter-drone solution on the market. I flew to Prague, picked up a rifle for the first time in my life, and hit 4 out of 5 moving ground targets at 70-100m. The company behind it is publicly listed with no coverage and could be a multibagger if they execute. Smart Shooter ( $SMSH ) makes a 740 gram computerised rifle sight that turns a standard rifle into an anti-drone weapon. The soldier points roughly at the target, holds the trigger, and the sight tracks, computes and releases the round at the microsecond the barrel is on target. FPV drones costing a few hundred dollars now account for the majority of casualties on the modern battlefield. Soldiers are using shotguns to defend themselves. They add weight, only work at 40-50 metres, and give you a couple seconds of reaction time. It's a terrible solution. Combat-proven with the Israeli army. Every branch of the US military has bought it in the last 14 months through sole-source emergency orders. The US has effectively said there is no substitute. After a soft Q2 the stock sits at $330m market cap, $83m net cash, no debt. EV of $247m. Not cheap on this year's numbers but 5-12x 2028 EBIT depending on adoption, against peers at 18-20x. A slipped order held Q2 revenue growth to 30% when it would have been closer to 88% with that order included. Early stage product bet with real risk, but a real product solving the most urgent problem in modern warfare, a clean balance sheet, and limited coverage creating a window before this gets widely known. Full deep dive on Undervalued and Undercovered.

• 
  Winfield Scott (@LtGenScott) reported 11 minutes ago

  @AHC1776 June 17, 1876 If I'm not mistaken, I think Crook had his own problems with Indians just a week before, and just south of the site of the Little Big Horn. I believe his battle was called The Battle of the Rosebud. It was a spirited affair, and while by no means a massacre, it nevertheless caused Crook to retreat south from the battlefield. The reason he was there (Northern Wyoming/Southeast Montana) at all was part of the grand strategy. To apply pressure to the Indians on several fronts at once. Well, Crook's retreat did two things: It gave the Indians a surge of confidence that they would use later on the 7th Cavalry, and it removed one of the army's pressure points. From Custer's point of view, it may have changed the entire complexion of the battle he went into 8 days later.

• 
  ExoticTurnip (@skogsdundret) reported 13 minutes ago

  @LordMazzar @TTVbbloxham322 @HeadNaughty And the Call Of Duty, Battlefield and Medal of Honor games were all based on real actual battles back in the day. I still don't see the issue. Are we no longer allowed to create games based on actual events? Or is that too "real" for the modern crowd?

• 
  Erick Ybarra (@ErickYbarra3) reported 19 minutes ago

  "{Sigh}. Ybarra and his secondary sources....We should just read primary sources." Every now and then, someone comes along and says this kind of thing. But just as with every extreme, we can appreciate much of the direction until it proves inadequate. This is easily proven if we take the extreme, "We should only read secondary sources." Most people will scoff at this idea. And rightly so. If all we did was read secondary sources, we would be deprived of the very source material we are talking about, and we would face a drought of uncertainty about the original, such that eventually all the secondary literature would lose its value altogether since there would not be a way to verify accurate reflections of the sources. But it is also the case for those who wish to pride themselves on their exclusive desire for primary sources. If all we emphasized were primary sources, we could fall prey to a myriad of problems. The first is compounding the uncertainty of the previous extreme (i.e., relying only on secondary sources) by getting into the spiral of the manuscript transmission debate itself, and for a variety of texts prior to the printing press. Invariably, the textual skeptic won't be satisfied until he can ascertain whether there are good grounds to accept a certain text as authentic or highly reliable given the historical circumstances. But guess what? You'll need to read extra-primary sources in order to get your bearings turning on that question, and thereby will have to build a small library with scholarly commentary. Secondly, when enough reading of the primary sources has been done, and we still find a wide variety of interpretations of the primary data, what use is there is just continually reading the primary sources? Well, for many intelligent readers, there is great use in doing this. I wouldn't deny that for a second. However, as Christian scholarship has proven, we still yield a multiplicity of contrary interpretations to the primary source data. Which..... eventually makes you have to actually talk about the primary source data with other people, and then, if you transcribed this onto paper, turns into secondary source literature. Now, it is old news that @AllanRuhl is a tremendously gifted historian and rigorously intent on making sure that we keep our fingers on the text of the primary sources. Recently, he published a Substack where he recommends his top 10 books on the papacy. And guess what? He recommends primary sources. And not only that, but it was purposefully done to contrast with my recent video recommending my top 10 books on the Papacy, which has many secondary sources. We know this because he brought me up in his article to show how, despite my being credited with some skill, my method is weakened, so it would seem the implication is, by a reliance on secondary source material. Allan has implied this in the past. Here's what I would say in defense of Ruhl and myself at the same time. When I was an Anglican reading the primary sources, I quickly became, as stated above, aware of the vast interpretive gulf between various persons, historians, exegetes, theologians, scholars, and traditions all ON THE SAME source data. I myself was one to rely on primary sources. And then it turned out that the primary sources alone don't always help you in every single historical debate, though that would have been nice! Fast forward - When, as a Catholic, I ventured to write books on the issues most crucial to my own journey, (1) the theological divide between Catholic and Protestants on the Priesthood (Melchizedek, et. al.) and (2) the fork between Byzantium and Rome, I knew that I couldn't just copy and paste primary sources. After spending many years reading the literature, just in the English (!), I learned that so many scholars from the 1700s had already been doing that kind of thing. "Here we have Primacy-sourceA weighing in at 200 pages in the right corner, traveling from Oxford {.....} and in the left corner is Primary-sourceB weighing in at 800 pages hailing from Tubingen University {.....}" So on and so forth. Debates on the Papacy, the Filioque, the Sacraments, etc. etc., needed to graduate from the well appreciated method of Florilegia, or as it is sometimes pejoratively referred, "Quote mining." By 2010, there had been countless books translated from the original Latin, Greek, and even Syriac. Orthodox scholars have had their own quote-mines as well. So my book on the Papacy could not just be another gear in the system. This is why the first 100 pages of my book on the Papacy, a book Allan has never read, is devoted to manuscript theory, transmission analysis, historical methodology, understanding the justification of sources, what counts as authentic evidence, what is the standard for which historian counts versus those who do not count, the various epistemological paradigms between Orthodox and Catholics that have a significant role in the reading of the source material, and finally an entire chapter on the science of theological development and how that plays into the East-West debate. Moreover, when one is building a case for a certain historical interpretation on a subject from a certain time period, it helps to amass the scholarship and the weight of consensus, particularly on the interpretation of primary sources wherein significant divergence is had. I'll give you one example. The scholarship on Pope St. Leo the Great. While the primary source material is clear enough, it doesn't have as much weight with Orthodox readers who are disposed to fight against that clarity, and so compiling 20 or 30 non-Catholic historians who comment on the Leonine theory of the Papacy would help to further disarm some of the fight that an Orthodox reader might have while reading my book. It might be to Allan's disappointment that I included so many historians and scholars, but after 5 years, the readership has only confirmed that the survey of scholarship helps. So yes, let's read the primary sources. But there is a great danger (even more than I've described) if we simply read primary sources. And we know this because of the historiographical, interpretational, and exegetical battlefield that is going on between rigorous traditions that all claim to be rooted in the very same history. And, as I've already said, if Allan wanted to be strict enough about sticking to only primary sources, then he and I shouldn't say a single word again, since no one needs us. Lastly, if you read my books, I do give the reader more than enough primary sources. Test me. Just go through my pictures on Facebook or X and tell me you aren't getting an education in Patristic theology.

• 
  不语jo (@rSg8ubzrCl9xg5h) reported 20 minutes ago

  @Battlefield You don't address the black screen issue after leaving a match, you don't even put out a notice about it. You guys are a bunch of idiots who don't understand balancing and don't know how to work with the Frostbite engine either.

• 
  Abyzon (@Abyzonn) reported 22 minutes ago

  In 1984 a Japanese man moved to the US with $40 in his pocket in 1949 and built an empire worth over $50 million. His institute trained thousands across 40 countries. His books sold 3 million copies. Heads of state paid to fly him in privately for one conversation. He was not a doctor. He was not a scientist. His name was Michio Kushi. And in 1984 he stood in front of a room and said everything modern medicine believes about disease is wrong. He opened with one sentence that cost him every mainstream audience he ever had. There is no enemy outside of you. There never was. He said modern medicine had built its entire structure on a war metaphor. Virus is the enemy. Bacteria is the enemy. DNA is the enemy. So we invented weapons — vaccinations, chemotherapy, radiation, drugs — and turned the human body into a battlefield. Billions of dollars. Thirty five years of research. Degenerative disease kept rising. Something greatly wrong, he said. The image of the enemy is the problem. He gave a simple example. Eat well for six months. Go to a summer picnic with people who eat normally. Watch where the mosquitoes land. They will circle you and move to the person drinking orange juice and eating ice cream. Not because they are polite. Because they know your blood is too thick and tight. Their feeding tube gets stuck. They have learned, while flying, that this one is dangerous. He said sickness works the same way. The bacteria did not attack you. You made yourself an attractive environment for bacteria. Then he said something nobody in the room expected. Nations do not exist. Birds cross borders without passports. From a plane you see mountains, forests, rivers. No lines anywhere. The lines are here — pointing to his head. We drew them, believed them, and then started fighting and dying to defend something that only exists as an image. Same with ownership. The house you think you own, you will leave behind. The money you think you have was made by a government from material taken from mountains that nature built. No one owns anything. Everyone is just using. Same with your job. He asked the room: you came from the infinite universe. Billions of years of transformation. Through plant kingdoms, through animal kingdoms, through thousands of different forms. You chose this planet, these parents, this body. And the result of that entire journey is — you sell your time for $200 a week and retire to Florida at 65? He said 90 to 99 percent of modern people are governed by delusions about what life is for. The cure was not a drug. It was grain. Brown rice, wheat, barley, corn. Plants that grow upward toward the sky. He said the food determines the quality of thought. Eat meat, you see enemies everywhere. Eat dairy and sugar, you sink into depression. Eat grain for six months and the delusions begin to dissolve on their own. He said when a person truly wakes up from the delusion, gratitude comes automatically. And when gratitude comes, the desire to help other people comes automatically. No teaching required. The lecture is free on YouTube. Just over an hour. Recorded in 1984. Almost nobody outside of macrobiotic and philosophy circles has watched it as a complete argument for why the modern world is suffering from something no hospital can treat.

• 
  PourangKay (@PourangKay) reported 25 minutes ago

  @InfinityWard Slow and boring matches. What's the point of "Ground War" when someone is activating Crossfire every two minutes? Infiltration means absolutely nothing in this game. Battlefield trying to copy CoD, and CoD trying to create big maps like BF without understanding the mechanics, is just a recipe for disaster. Early Beta had its problems but this is just boring.

• 
  Nich (@iamslickdick) reported 27 minutes ago

  @BDEgameowners Its a layering issue if Im not mistaken, since the person who wants to concede came before Abyssal Persecutor, if it hits the battlefield, they cannot concede. They CAN concede with it on the stack as long as they have a flash enabler.

• 
  Steve R (@Stephen_rawling) reported 28 minutes ago

  @JezHermerMBE Shape the battlefield, you have literally sat on an IED and blown yourself up. You know what numbers you hoped to get and it was double what you got. All you have done is let the enemy pincer around us. You are the problem.

• 
  Norseman (@CollinBotner) reported 30 minutes ago

  @HaywoodChablomy @Springfield_Inc Show some respect! They prolly have experience, likey more than a keyboard warrior, COD/Battlefield operator, and or hipster with rolled up jeans, talking **** on X! lol I’m 55, I Do take my vitamins, and I Can shoot the hair off a frogs *** at 50 yards! Problem ********!?!??

• 
  Veritas Anchor ⚓️ (@VeritasAnchor) reported 32 minutes ago

  @TribeRuffner @KyleIgnatius It was not a memo. It was the quorum dying and not being replaced. While the apostles lived they still had to fight Judaizers, factions in Corinth, and men drawing disciples after themselves. After they were gone it got worse, not better. No new Twelve. Bishops ran cities. Then came rival teachers, Gnostics, Marcion cutting books out of the Bible, and later Arians and their opponents splitting the empire over how to define God. Councils replaced living apostles. Creeds replaced “it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us.” The ordinances moved too. New Testament baptism follows repentance and faith. Little children get blessed, not marched into water to fix Adam. Later the Church baptized infants as a rule and built a theology that made it necessary. That is not the pattern Christ left. Mode, meaning, and who could perform it all drifted. The Lord’s Supper became a battlefield. Offices multiplied. East and West finally split. Then Protestants split the split. If that is an unbroken Church with the same keys, it has a strange way of showing it. Jesus warned about traditions that make the commandment of none effect. Paul warned of a falling away and wolves from inside. That is the scriptural concept. The later map of sects, wars over creeds, and rewritten ordinances is what the loss looks like on the ground. He still heard prayers. He still preserved scripture. The living authority to keep the Church as He organized it did not stay. The Restoration is the claim that He gave it back.

• 
  John Lane (@JohnLan70186141) reported 33 minutes ago

  @Mr_Andrew_Fox Battlefield Ecology describes evolving technology and tactics. What works well gets used until changes make it work worse. Even then, old solutions sometimes address contemporary problems.