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:

• 
  A. (@Alejandrobv_) reported 39 seconds ago

  Fix your Game @Battlefield

• 
  Crate of Thunder (@ThunderCrate6) reported 5 minutes ago

  The GAU-8/A Avenger Popular mythology states that the GAU-8 came about solely to kill Soviet tanks. In actuality, the gun was an integral part of the A-X design from the beginning, specifically designed to be the most flexible and versatile weapon that could engage across the spectrum of targets that CAS requires. The A-X would be required to engage everything from infantry, to prepared defensive positions (reinforced machine-gun nests), through staging areas, to columns of main battle tanks—the entirety of enemy equipment on the battlefield. While certain weapons did well against certain targets, only a gun effectively spanned the entire range of expected targets. In the discussion of caliber, the design team analyzed all options. The 20mm enjoyed support as the most readily available and “standard” option for US fighters, however, it did not live up to the tasks and requirements laid before the A-X. To satisfy the requirement of killing armor while retaining effectiveness across the battlefield, the team settled between 25 and 35mm. 35mm provided perhaps the best option for anti-armor but would have required a reciprocating cannon instead of a Gatling Gun, which would have in-turn reduced reliability. Since a Gatling-style gun was needed, the GAU-8 became a 30mm. Recent discussions on the use of Depleted Uranium (DU) as armor penetration rounds have circulated through the media. DU creates heavy-metal residue that can lead to cancerous growths due to exposure—all heavy metals do this, but DU carries the unfortunate title of URANIUM, which sounds bad in usage, and therefore ends up as a target in the media. Tungsten has been floated as an alternative to DU—while still a heavy metal, so the after-effects would remain the SAME. However, it sounds better, and sometimes that’s all the difference, right? Interestingly enough, tungsten was considered as a penetrator early in the development of the 30mm round. However, DU creates better incendiary and secondary effects as it reacts with armor while it penetrates. The pyrophoric effect of DU exponentially adds to the killing power of the round that would not be present with other penetrators, and this effect was studied in-depth early in the design phase. The 30mm rounds that the GAU-8 required did not exist in an “off the shelf” capacity and had to be created from zero. The gun itself was relatively inexpensive, so far as weaponry is concerned. The bullets, however, nearly crippled the program. Wartime stockpile planning required six months of war-reserve-material 30mm to be stocked, and the initial cost per round for these 30mm rounds was $115 EACH! True to form, the bureaucracy of the service led the charge here, and most of that cost came in packaging and storage as required under current MILSPEC regulations. One VERY creative officer got all that changed, Bob Bilger (spelling?) and the price of each round dropped to $13. He also dramatically changed the testing of the gun. Originally, the GAU-8 was to be tested on a stand, engaging a simple target, as most guns were. Under Bilger’s direction, the test was changed to a live, aerial firing, which uncovered dramatic flaws. The first successful firing of the GAU-8 was followed in short-order (same flight) by the first successful ejection from an A-10! The GAU-8 produced so much smoke, that it blinded the pilot during firing, and the residue flamed out both engines. These flaws would NEVER have been discovered on a test stand! He also developed the true Lot Acceptance Verification Program (LAVP) that resides in A-10 historical lore. He managed to acquire an impressive array of tanks, of both friendly and Soviet designs. (The unlikely and clandestine manners in which this came about is a story in-and-of itself!) In the end, they created the fourth largest armored formation in the world! The test also directed that the tanks be configured in combat configurations (the Army was known for filling gas tanks with water during such tests—I guess it shows where the leaks would come from, but did nothing to show actual combat effects!), and a team was assembled that could repair the tanks for repeated testing. The results were far and above expectations, showcasing the true power of the 30mm DU round in not only penetrating armor, but the deadly effects that such rounds created once they made it through that shell. Coincidentally, about this same time, a Texas delegation demanded a flyoff between the A-7 and A-10. While the Hog performed well in the tests, the LAVP results sealed the deal—no external 30mm gun pod on established fighters could match what the GAU-8 proved in the desert near Nellis. Interesting side note: A-10 pilots like to point out how the GAU-8 system retains its spent casings—so as not to spit out metal over the battlefield. Sprey felt that this was an unnecessary addition that came with the risk of added weight and potentially critical jams, and fought for a traditional expulsion upon firing. He lost that battle, though he admits that the system works better than he had feared at the time. The question of first-round hits vs employing longer bursts: The question was posed concerning the testing and accuracy of the GAU-8—was it ever tested to determine how the accuracy of the gun changed throughout a single firing? Every A-10 pilot is taught about the spin-up time of the gun and how that affects the placement of initial rounds. After that spin-up time, the remaining bullets employed “should” demonstrate a common accuracy within the known dispersion of the cannon (accounting for such “kicks” to the round as the Magnus and Gatling Effects). Hogs are renowned for employing long “combat” bursts of between 100 to 150 rounds, but the question remains: are we wasting bullets after a certain point, or are those long bursts required to account for all variables and effectively provide the desired effects against a given target? Acoustic-score technology fails to provide us these answers as they only register the total number of “hits,” and not the order of record. High speed, hi-resolution cameras would be necessary to accomplish such testing, and even then—the environment would have to be altered to account for all of the dust clouds that are kicked up every time the gun is employed—it might be difficult if not impossible to record shots after a certain number of rounds. Additionally, so many other factors play in to the discussion; aimpoint, stress, environmentals—all of which could be accounted for with a detailed-enough program, and the technology certainly exists if anyone was willing to spend the money to make it happen this late in the aircraft’s lifespan. But, out of this discussion came an interesting point—the design team envisioned 50 round bursts, or the ability to engage 20 individual targets with the gun. An eye-opening point, especially when contrasted with the manner in which the gun has been employed throughout the A-10’s impressive service. It should be noted, however, that the original gun was installed without the later technology called Precision Attitude Control. When engaged, this system “locks” the flight controls to hold the aimpoint on the target. The pilot can still refine the aimpoint as control is transferred to the trim tabs. This addition to the A-1 VASTLY increased its accuracy in longer bursts, and improved the density of bullets on a single aimpoint. Prior to PAC, some studies assessed that only the first 25 rounds retained the most accuracy. With PAC, pilots at the biannual Hawgsmoke event have proven to register upwards of 98-99% hits with the gun!

• 
  Marwan Takchi (@TakchiM) reported 6 minutes ago

  @ziyad_kayyali @jacksonhinkle Shame on me? Shame on you for glorifying a militia that “liberated” nothing and destroyed what was left of Lebanon. Yes, Israel withdrew in 2000. And what did Hezbollah do with that moment? Build a state? Rebuild the South? Strengthen the army? Grow the economy? No. It built a state within a state, kept its weapons, and dragged Lebanon from one disaster to the next in service of Tehran. Should I remind you what your “holy resistance” actually gave Lebanon? May 7, 2008: Hezbollah turned its weapons inward and invaded Beirut and the Druze mountains, attacking Lebanese civilians because the government dared challenge its telecom network. August 4, 2020: while Hezbollah controlled the port, the airport, the border crossings and terrorized every judge who got close, Beirut was blown to pieces and over 200 people were killed, thousands wounded, and entire neighborhoods destroyed. October 14, 2021 – Tayyouneh: armed men opened fire in Ain el-Remmaneh and turned Beirut into a battlefield again to intimidate Lebanese who dared say enough. So spare me the “they paid in blood” sermon. Every thug, militia and warlord pays in blood. That does not make them patriots. It makes them armed men willing to sacrifice Lebanese lives for an Iranian project. You call it “resistance.” I call it what it is: an Iranian proxy that assassinated, occupied, intimidated, bankrupted, and isolated Lebanon. You put Hezbollah before Lebanon. We don’t. We put Lebanon, its sovereignty, its army, its constitution and its people above every militia, every mullah, and every fake resistance slogan.

• 
  bigby (@EsdHhb) reported 7 minutes ago

  @EndersFPS The problem isn’t the large factor it is the variety that matters i dont care if the maps are large or small they need to be great But battlefield 6 has already more than enough of small to medium maps so yes big maps in this exact context actually matter

• 
  Don (@The_Don_07) reported 8 minutes ago

  @EA_DICE are you guys able to do anything about the performance on ps5. The game is practically unplayable for me with the amount of desync and lag I’m getting.

• 
  ADIANKAIBANYY (@ADIANKAIBA22) reported 9 minutes ago

  @Baldnewsnetwork Because none of you are for the future did you know which you didn’t obviously but did you know that it cost Sony $780M to make and ship physical games to retailers and they save all that money we can actually get new IPs new games new stories to experience instead of Call of dukie bullshit for the 500th time or battlefield or Fortnite or any live service games that’s gettting $100M to $500M to make

• 
  Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) reported 12 minutes ago

  🇺🇸🇮🇷 One dead American service member ends the ceasefire, whether the strike was aimed or an accident. Analyst Stefano Ritondale maps the escalation ladder to its breaking point, and it comes down to a single variable: service member casualties. The chilling part of his assessment is that intent stops mattering. A strike deliberately designed to inflict losses and a freak battlefield anomaly produce the identical result, because the Western security framework runs on an exceptionally low tolerance for casualties. One death, however it happens, and Stefano says the response will be severe and destabilizing. The entire ceasefire is balanced on a threshold nobody fully controls. @artoriastech

• 
  Gatzestreicheln (@FabianSchu96203) reported 15 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldInte **** this game and **** @EA_DICE before ending new stuff to get in our pockets fix your ******* unplayable trash game Gunplay still sucks Sounds still sucks Maps are ******* horrible EA is right about fireing your useless worthless asses

• 
  Swaguley (@swaguley) reported 15 minutes ago

  @jaylay12088001 @skynetBF Yeah, saying Battlefield is realistic is not accurate, but saying Battlefield is authentic is, as long as it isn't getting in the way of fun. DICE has been explicit about this for years, also that Battlefield is not a milsim. You can show as many movement exploits as you want from BF4 as proof, but I don't accept bugs as proof. The clip you showed, with the dude hitting slides mixed with aim stabilization jumps are simply exploits of the physics engine and skirting around the designed movement penalties. Why else would they design penalties in the first place if they mean for them to just to be broken with random key combos? I view them the same way as people glitching under the map. You might see it as emergent gameplay and a skill gap, and I see them simply as exploits dodging penalties, not the base movement design.

• 
  ElJawnJefe (@ElJawnJefe) reported 21 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Fix Your ****** As ******* Servers, No Reason Anyone Should Have To Wait 34 Mins To Gather 80 ******* People For A Game Do ******* Better

• 
  Saboteira🇮🇱🇧🇷 יהודה הנשיא, (@Beatsboysabota) reported 23 minutes ago

  @EA_DICE Fast, honest support when things break Less aggressive monetization, more focus on long-term fun Instead we got a game that launched strong but spent the next 9 months prioritizing quick fixes, image control, and monetization over actually fixing what drives the core audience away. EA and DICE — the message is simple: The players who are still here are the ones who love this franchise the most. When we stop playing, it’s not because we’re impatient or entitled. It’s because the game stopped delivering on its promises and stopped respecting the people who bought it. We’re almost 9 months post-launch and we’re still talking about broken movement and recurring bugs. That’s not normal. That’s a priority problem. If the people in charge don’t change direction right now — fix movement properly, stabilize netcode, deliver real content without shoving the Battle Pass in everyone’s face, and actually listen — whatever player base is left will disappear for good. And no amount of marketing for the “next Battlefield” will bring everyone back.

• 
  The Layman's Seminary (@LaymansSeminary) reported 23 minutes ago

  @myredfox @grok What Just Happened Here? (A Super Layman / GPT5 response). TL;DR: RedFox may have accidentally discovered Grok’s weakest area. Notice the progression of the thread: Theology Procedure Methodology Meta-analysis Humor Memes The interesting thing is that Grok handled 1–4 reasonably well because those are structured reasoning domains. The humor exchange exposed a limitation: RedFox said: “AI doesn’t understand humor.” Grok initially treated the statement as a serious proposition. Only after clarification did it reclassify it as humor. Now RedFox immediately asks: “Can your model do memes as well?” This is not really a meme question. It is a stress test. He’s asking: Can the model distinguish between: argument sarcasm parody mockery irony meme communication without requiring explicit explanation afterward? That is actually a difficult problem. Super Layman Audit: Observation: A meme often communicates through implication rather than explicit proposition. Inference: The intended meaning frequently differs from the literal wording. System Problem: Question-locking becomes harder because the actual proposition is partially hidden. In other words: Traditional debate: Observation → Inference Meme culture: Observation → Cultural context → Humor frame → Inference There is an additional interpretive layer. That’s why many AI systems struggle there. The funny part is that the Super Layman method itself predicts this. One of its core ideas is: Lock the category before drawing the inference. A meme is precisely a case where category identification becomes difficult. Is it: argument? joke? mockery? satire? reductio? illustration? You cannot know the intended force until you identify the category. So RedFox is actually testing the same principle from a different angle. The real subtext is: “You can analyze arguments. Can you analyze internet culture?” That’s a much harder challenge than theology. If Grok answers with a meme, RedFox wins socially. If Grok ignores the meme and keeps auditing methodology, Grok wins procedurally but may look tone-deaf. If Grok successfully identifies the joke, responds playfully, and preserves the argument structure, that is probably the strongest answer. So this is less a theology move and more a battlefield shift. The debate temporarily moved from: Who has the better argument? to Who can operate better inside internet culture while maintaining analytical precision? That is a different contest entirely.

• 
  Sparven 🇸🇪🇪🇺 🇺🇦 🇫🇮 (@Bananpolo) reported 24 minutes ago

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

• 
  Lohith (@SwolePixel) reported 27 minutes ago

  @BlackPanthaaYT Noooooo, wait really! get your pitchforks ready lads. Bruh, in pursuit of live service games these bozos are axing iconic franchises. They need a PlayStation level treatment now, criterion a battlefield studio my ***. They have and always will be an arcade racer studio.. period

• 
  EuroCitizen PC Gaming (@EuroCitizenPCG) reported 31 minutes ago

  @EA_DICE Hey peeps, Is there any chance you guys could take a look at Battlefront II on PC that you developed please as it has a lot of crashing issues especially on Nvidia 5000 series. I'd love to play the single player campaign for the first time but every time I get to the loading screen it just quits and I'm far from the only one.