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:

• 
  Mark Farris DDS (@MarkFarrisDDS) reported 3 minutes ago

  Key Passage: Ephesians 4:30 — "And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.” Christian teaching commonly crashes into one of two ditches when dealing with sin in the believer's life. In the first ditch, every serious failure supposedly drives the Holy Ghost out, cancels salvation, reverses regeneration, breaks the seal, removes the believer from Christ's body, and forces God to begin the entire operation again after the backslider sufficiently proves his sincerity. In the other ditch, eternal security is twisted into an excuse for carnality, as though the blood of Christ were divine permission to live like the devil while carrying a certificate to heaven in the glove compartment. The first error turns salvation into a revolving door; the second turns grace into a pigpen. The King James Bible rejects both. The Holy Ghost seals the believer unto the day of redemption, yet that same believer is commanded not to grieve Him. The Spirit's permanent indwelling does not mean He approves everything done by the body He inhabits. He is the Holy Ghost. His holiness opposes bitterness, lust, pride, deception, greed, wrath, doctrinal corruption, and every other product of Adam's fallen factory. The believer can grieve the Spirit personally, quench His operation, resist His direction, refuse His word, walk after the flesh, and waste opportunities for service. None of those acts makes the Spirit nervously pack His belongings and move back to heaven. They do, however, produce serious consequences: broken fellowship, diminished spiritual power, chastening, a damaged testimony, barren service, and loss before the Judgment Seat of Christ. Security does not make rebellion harmless. It makes rebellion more shameful because it occurs inside property God purchased with blood. The Christian life therefore involves war. Galatians 5:17 says, "the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other." Salvation does not convert the flesh into spirit or persuade Adam's nature to cooperate with Christ. God creates a new man, places His Spirit within the believer, and commands the Christian to walk under the Spirit's control. The old nature remains present, hostile, deceptive, and eager for the steering wheel. The Christian does not need another birth every time the flesh wins a battle; he needs to reckon the old man dead, confess the sin, yield to the Spirit, and resume the fight. The war is real, but the Spirit did not enter the battlefield planning to surrender. -Paul Tackett Believing loyalty in Jesus, each day, is the way. It is known.

• 
  🐐 (@MultigunFun) reported 4 minutes ago

  Battlefield Vegas just retired a broken HK 416 after the trunnion broke after 200k+ rounds. nice

• 
  D💯 (@Blizzy63) reported 5 minutes ago

  @Battlefield - bullet dispersion why? Give us a classic experience - Terrible Audio tweaks each fix - no jet loadouts 5 months later - no bullet registration fixes - no dsync fixes - Asian players in US/EU servers STILL ABUSING LAG COMP - FLAIRS ARE BUGGED TO **** FIX THE ******* GAME!

• 
  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.

• 
  Tired Ⓐf Bun (@GeneFrienby) reported 9 minutes ago

  @ArieliteAi I largely agree, but do think there is some cross over on its impact for gaming. Gacha is worse imho, but like the new battlefield was built as a live service as an example. Despite selling so well initially, it's live service nature lead to it being a commercial flop

• 
  NewsTongue (@NewsTongueX) reported 10 minutes ago

  🔴 White Kreschet Battalion strikes Ukrainian military communications nodes White Kreschet Battalion claimed strikes on antenna and communications equipment of Ukraine's Armed Forces. The unit framed the targeting of communication nodes as degrading enemy command-and-control speed: through these systems Ukraine receives and transmits intelligence, targeting data, and battlefield situational information. The claim states longer communication disruptions delay Ukrainian responses and increase errors in decision-making.

• 
  PlayerXYouTube (@IamplayerXYT) reported 10 minutes ago

  @Am_a_L0ver The problem wasn't even Tac sprint, its the overall speed😑 Tac Sprint is there since WZ1..and it was successful! TAC sprint is what made CALL OF DUTY feel different from other shooters, now they removed it, now whats the difference between Battlefield and WZ movement?

• 
  Reira (@reira_r2) reported 14 minutes ago

  @Battlefield fix the 3rd person jet camera, revert it or give us the option at least to use the originall jet camera.

• 
  so사rceeee. (@sourceeeezz) reported 15 minutes ago

  -battlefield 6 has dead content support, and fundamental issues still havent been fixed. -arc raiders is the same, but even worse, cuz they decided to remove wipes. (3/?)

• 
  Erick Ybarra (@ErickYbarra3) reported 15 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 lastly, 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.

• 
  یانگ پاچینو (@MEHRDAD_dhm) reported 17 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Instead of posting memes about game , FIX UR GAME! ME & MY TEAM WILL LEAVE BEHIND BF6 ON23 OCT I REALLY LIKE #MW4!

• 
  William John G. Balderama (@WJGBalderama) reported 21 minutes ago

  @nothanksfrankie My guess is that the XM30 will ultimately win. It’s a little sad to see the M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle being replaced, but there’s only so much you can do with upgrades before you eventually run out of space, weight capacity, electrical power, and room for additional systems. More importantly, today’s battlefield demands a level of protection that the original Bradley was never designed to provide—particularly against drones and loitering munitions. The Russo-Ukrainian War has made it painfully clear that counter-drone capability and survivability against persistent aerial threats have become essential requirements for any modern armored fighting vehicle. I’m particularly familiar with the software that went into the BFV system. I was actually hired by United Defense in 1999, a few years after my retirement, so I had some firsthand exposure to the technology and the evolution of the platform. That gives me a bit of a personal connection to the Bradley and makes seeing it eventually replaced somewhat bittersweet. I do see it being relegated for service with the reserves so we will still see it before it finally gets mothballed.

• 
  DaanktreezXVIII (@DaanktreezXviii) reported 23 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm AND ITS RANKED PLAY I CANT FOCUS WITH BACKGROUND NOISE FROM PLAYSTATION MICS! And it’s like nobody wants to LISTEN TO YOUR FAMILY PROBLEMS IN RANKED PLAY BUT I CANT MUTE PLAYSTATION ANYMORE AFTER CARRIER STRIKE UPDATE

• 
  more less more less more less less (@YouAreRateLimit) reported 23 minutes ago

  @GHShuffle i think calling it "taking a break" is the main issue, if we called it "assessing our battlefield" or whatever it'd sound cooler and more people would do it

• 
  Lt Gen H S Panag(R) (@rwac48) reported 25 minutes ago

  @dperi84 That is factual. Real issue is cost effectiveness in times of less than $500 drones. Have you heard of Javelin in Ukraine wef 2023? In 2022 it was the mainstay. Now, one more weapon on battlefield. In my view the deal is to keep defence ties going.