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:

• 
  Miad Maleki (@miadmaleki) reported 4 minutes ago

  (15/17) On "[sanctions] have mostly failed to effect the policy changes they were designed to drive." This is the essay's central conceptual error. Nate, my friend, you know should better. Sanctions are not a standalone instrument for producing "policy change." They are one part of a coercion toolkit that includes military credibility, diplomacy, allied enforcement, coalition-building, and a defined off-ramp. The piece first attacks sanctions for not doing what only the whole toolkit can do, then attacks the current campaign for using more of the toolkit; blockade, regional enforcement, secondary sanctions, snapback. Its own examples refute it. The 2003 nuclear pause happened under converging military pressure post-Iraq invasion plus economic pressure. The JCPOA was accepted under converging 2012 CBI/oil sanctions plus a credible military threat plus a snapback structure. 1988 happened under converging U.S. naval engagement plus a collapsed war economy plus battlefield defeat. The essay even concedes: "Pressure helped push Iran to temporarily pause its nuclear program during George W. Bush's administration and, later, to accept the JCPOA." That's a concession that pressure works. The rest is a redefinition of "work" as "regime collapse without other instruments," a definition no coercion theory has ever accepted.

• 
  Rob Lee (@RALee85) reported 8 minutes ago

  I made a similar point about this in some of our recent podcasts. Part of the problem with the assault regiments is how they were employed. They were ordered to conduct counterattacks with little notice to retake positions of questionable value that would likely be lost in the future because the brigades holding the front lacked the manpower. To conduct offensive operations properly on this battlefield, you need time to plan, conduct rehearsals, and set the conditions for employing armor. There also need to be clear objectives, supported/supporting relationship, and unity of command. If you don't have this time, offensive actions will likely fail and at high cost.

• 
  enricoo42sant (@YbBarcaynadamas) reported 8 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm In battlegield hardline on pc since yesterday we can't play dlc map or had dlc content fix it @BattlefieldComm

• 
  NewsTongue (@NewsTongueX) reported 9 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.

• 
  CumminsNV5600 (@cat345rjwc97015) reported 11 minutes ago

  When It Looks Like the End The sky had turned black. Ash fell like snow across the ruined battlefield. Broken banners hung from empty poles, and the ground trembled beneath the distant thunder. The white lion stood alone. His body was scarred. His mane was covered in dust. Around him, shadows rose slowly from the earth, reaching toward him from every direction. For a moment, it looked like there was nowhere left to go. No army. No kingdom. No hope. The lion lowered his head and closed his eyes. Then he heard the roar in the wind: “It only looks like the end.” His eyes opened. $Courage lifted his head, planted his paws firmly into the ground, and let out a roar that shook the darkness. The shadows stopped. The storm seemed to listen. The lion took one step forward. Then another. He only knew one thing: Courage isn’t believing you will win. Courage is taking the next step when everything tells you to stop. And so, when the world thought his story was over— the lion began again. Dveq2rabHNdZW1YR5ZSECSnPkrcV5ZVGjKSMXD6Bpump

• 
  Bmurphy (@Bmur3333) reported 12 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm Listen to me u bunch of ******* mentally handicapped *****. If u don't fix team balancing and TTD no one will be playing dis **** on 2 months time

• 
  Pepe Silvia (@DevRev0) reported 16 minutes ago

  @WizrdofNazareth @gremloe Because I think wanting to play a body cam video game that’s hyper realistic, looks indistinguishable from modern videos coming out of war torn areas is indicative of some serious disconnect from reality. Just play call of duty or battlefield like a normal person.

• 
  Brazi 🇧🇷🇮🇹 (@Brazi_real) reported 18 minutes ago

  @bigbenisfake I mean what's the issue with this game compared to a game like battlefield or call of duty? Is it the fact that you don't play as a hero or cool protagonist? This is a genuine question btw im not like tryna be a ******** or anything I just wanna know like your opinion on this.

• 
  Erick Ybarra (@ErickYbarra3) reported 20 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.

• 
  🌑🕷️RiskE80🕷️🌑 (@RiskE80_) reported 23 minutes ago

  @clarityysix But then again I guess it is kindve a vague definition cuz there are games that are considered live service but have a similar content cycle like Borderlands (CoD, GTA Online, Battlefield) where they make a game, make new content, then make a new game eventually, repeat

• 
  Onile Olona. (@alpontif) reported 30 minutes ago

  I am thinking, that the Government should do something about this Banditry and Kidnapping thing that is gradually creeping into the South West, among the Yorubas. The reason is because based on historical antecedents and lineage history, things can escalate pretty fast into open war and a lot of innocent people will bear the brunt. Ogun o ro bi eko. The Yorubas are a warlike people...in spite of the stereotype popular these days....it takes very little for things to start happening. There are even lineages that specialise in war fighting, as in that is the whole purpose of such lineages. You have the Esho Ikoyi also known as Iran Onikoyi, whose panegyric glorifies death on the battlefield..., You have the Owu Lineage , You have the Ogogo Lineage...etc..not to now talk of the various Towns established primarily to do War , like Ibadan, like Ogbomosho.... in fact the Ogbomosho are notorious for been Mercenaries...as in war is their business historically., you can find evidence of all these in the histories and their panegyrics.... War is evil, and the people must not be pushed too far into taking the law into their hands.... look at what is happening in iseyin....if care is not taken...things can escalate to a point where Baloguns of towns will go on the war path if they are pushed into procuring heavy weaponry in the quest for self defense...all of this reads like a joke now...but my prayer is that I am wrong. Benin republic is right next to Yorubaland, The open sea is directly part of Yorubaland....the madness of Libyan weaponry pouring in to Nigeria will be easily outmatched if care is not taken. The Government should permanently end this problem or permit people to arm up for self defense..either ways...when push becomes death, it will be the inevitable eventuality. May God help us all.

• 
  Yellow fruit (@EmersonAck74431) reported 31 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Atrocious game that has huge netcode and balance issues!

• 
  FanatikGaming (@FanatikGaming1) reported 32 minutes ago

  yo @Battlefield @EA @EA_DICE Can we get this matchmaking in ranked fixed. European servers and bs, black screens, endless bugs. just fix anything in the game. the matchmaking is absolutely terrible. Party finder needs a filter, list goes on and on. such a slap in the face rn

• 
  Psycho Fella (@Psycho_Fella) reported 33 minutes ago

  THE TANK ERA IN UKRAINE IS OVER. JUST NOT THE WAY COUCH EXPERTS, ADVISORS, AND CONSULTANTS UNDERSTAND IT By Rimas Armaitis, Armed Forces of Ukraine (ZSU) veteran—Lithuanian, sapper, instructor The New York Times reports that about half of the tank battalion soldiers from Ukraine’s 33rd Mechanized Brigade have already retrained as drone operators. Some recruits are no longer being trained to operate tanks at all. Leopard 2A4s are still maintained, repaired, and used for training, but they are rarely sent on combat missions—mostly during bad weather when drone activity decreases. This does not mean that all tanks will be scrapped tomorrow. It means something much more unpleasant for tank enthusiasts: the tank has lost its status as the primary strike platform. The platform remains, but its role, frequency of use, and cost-to-risk ratio have fundamentally changed. A tank costing millions cannot operate freely on the battlefield because it is under constant surveillance by reconnaissance drones. Once detected, a tank doesn’t even need to be destroyed in a single strike. The first FPV drone might damage a track or optics, the second hits the engine, and the third attacks the crew or the evacuation vehicle. Later, the job is finished off by a heavy bomber drone, artillery, or aerial mining. Even if the tank remains repairable, the combat mission is already ruined, the crew’s lives are at risk, and another expensive machine must be sent to evacuate the vehicle. This is where the economics of war begin—something our couch generals for some reason stubbornly refuse to understand. The key issue isn't whether a tank can theoretically be protected. What matters is how much its protection, logistics, repairs, and trained crew cost compared to how little it costs the enemy to detect, disable, and finish it off. When a chain of drones costing a few hundred or a few thousand euros disables a platform worth millions, we are not facing an emotional debate of "tanks vs. drones," but a catastrophically unfavorable cost-to-result ratio. Of course, some advisor-consultant will now pop up and solemnly declare: "But a drone doesn't hold ground!" Thank you for the breakthrough. An artillery shell doesn't hold ground either. A landmine doesn't control an intersection, and a fighter jet doesn't sit in a trench. Different tools perform different functions. The logic of modern assault is as follows: reconnaissance drones spot positions and movement; FPVs and bomber drones destroy or suppress targets; ground-based robotic systems transport explosives, lay mines, scout, provoke the enemy into revealing firing points, and provide fire support. Only then do the infantry clear, capture, and consolidate the territory—performing what is called "zakrep" on the front lines. Unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) are already being deployed with machine-gun modules, grenade launchers, shaped charges, and fragmentation charges. They handle logistics, evacuation, engineering, and specific assault tasks. They haven't replaced all light armored vehicles yet, but they are already taking over functions where it is better to lose a machine than to lose a machine along with its driver, crew, and squad. Infantry aren't going anywhere. However, a pure infantry assault without aerial reconnaissance, electronic warfare, drones, combat engineering preparation, and fire support is nowadays more simply referred to as a "meat assault." The neat phrase "an infantryman will still have to clear the trench" does not justify the idiotically wasteful decision to send him into that trench first. The role of artillery is also evolving. It remains essential for mass firepower, suppression, area targets, and operating under conditions where drones are restricted. However, single targets have long been handled by FPVs, heavy bomber drones, and mid-strike drones. Deep-strike systems and cheaper cruise missile analogs operate further behind enemy lines. So, drones haven't "replaced everything." They have taken over a huge share of reconnaissance, spotter adjustment, precision destruction, mining, logistics, and even assault roles. As a result, tanks, armored vehicles, artillery, and aviation are used less frequently, more cautiously, and only when their impact justifies the cost and risk. Another argument from the couch experts: "Just turn on electronic warfare and the drones won't fly." Right, of course. Strange that the Ukrainians themselves haven't thought of pressing the magic "turn off drones" button over more than four years of war. Electronic warfare (EW) is essential, but it is not an invisible dome. We now have frequency hopping, relays, elements of autonomous control, machine vision systems, and fiber-optic-guided FPVs. Every line of defense triggers a countermeasure, and technological cycles at the front line sometimes change within weeks. While our consultant spends six months coordinating the final version of a PowerPoint presentation, his "latest" conclusion is already outdated twice over. We are not anti-tank. We are against using tanks according to the doctrine of yesterday's war. For a tank to make a proper comeback to the battlefield, it needs more than just a metal cage welded onto the roof. It requires a complete protection ecosystem: drone detection, electronic warfare, active and passive defense, interceptor drones, dedicated reconnaissance drones, reduced physical and electromagnetic visibility, and integration into a unified intelligence and fire-control network. The tank of the future will likely be unmanned or optionally manned. Because the issue isn't just armor thickness. The issue is sending human beings, along with the tank, into a zone under constant surveillance and targeted fire. This is what we have been talking about for years now. Except our conclusions weren't drawn from watching YouTube or dragging blue and red rectangles across a screen. They emerged from the trenches of the current war. We have seen how the kill zone is shifting, how drones evolved from an auxiliary tool into a primary means of destruction, and how outdated procedures began costing human lives. Yet in Lithuania, a strange qualification system still prevails: if you were at the front yourself, you are "too emotional." If you fought on Facebook for four years, you qualify as a military expert. If you saw the doctrine fail, you are a radical. If you rewrote it three times in PowerPoint, you are an advisor or consultant. So let me repeat this as simply as possible: Tanks haven't disappeared. What has disappeared is the ability to use them the way it was planned ten or twenty years ago. Aerial and ground robotic systems have already taken over a portion of the roles previously held by light armor, artillery, aviation, and infantry. Anyone who fails to grasp this isn't "defending classic warfare"—they are simply preparing for yesterday's war using tomorrow's budget. And if, after all these arguments, someone still only hears "veterans want to get rid of tanks," it's not an additional explanation they need. They lack the ability to read a text longer than the headline of a tank procurement contract.

• 
  Tyler (@Tylergzilla) reported 33 minutes ago

  @Battlefield FIX THE FLARE BUG PLEASE MAN