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:

• 
  Odocerato (@odocerato) reported 2 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm I have been dealing with frame drops not only on Tsuru Reef but across all maps since season 4 of Battlefield 6 began. It feels disheartening to have to face this issue.

• 
  Bro (@RaulBro7) reported 3 minutes ago

  @diarchtct @BattlefieldComm Exactly, why they even removed tactical obliteration? They even mentioned a fix for it on last patch notes and never labeled as LTM as with other modes. And strikepoint? for how long its been removed? lol

• 
  CalvZynisT (@CalvZynisT) reported 5 minutes ago

  I need an expert computer gaming nerd to come diagnose why I lag in battlefield 6. I have been gaming my whole life, kinda new to pc gaming but I ain’t that stupid. I can’t figure it out

• 
  Nero (@Lindemann3443) reported 5 minutes ago

  @Battlefield map is cool and fix ******* bugs

• 
  RogueSailor (@sailor_rog19339) reported 6 minutes ago

  John Russell got rejected by The Marines for being "too tall." Two years later he was a decorated combat officer. Six foot three was apparently a problem on paper. He didn't walk away. He pushed back in, got accepted, and by November 1942 he was commissioned as a second lieutenant. Assigned to the 6th Marine Regiment. Sent straight into one of the deadliest campaigns in the Pacific. Guadalcanal wasn't a training exercise. It was one of the turning points of the entire w@r, and John Russell was in the middle of it as an intelligence officer, gathering information that got men k**led or kept them alive depending on how good it was. He didn't just survive it. He got a battlefield commission and was decorated for valor. That's not something handed out for showing up. That's earned in the middle of chaos, when the plan falls apart and someone still has to make the right call. Malaria is what finally took him out of the fight. Not enemy fire. Not an ambush. A mosquito. He got discharged, came home, and had to rebuild a life after nearly dying from something that never even showed up on a battlefield map. Hollywood had no idea what to do with a man like that. So they cast him as the toughest, quietest lawman on television. Marshal Dan Troop in "Lawman" ran for four seasons, and Russell played him so buttoned-up and stoic that fans joked he barely got to kiss anyone on the show. Meanwhile, in a villain role the same year, he kissed two different women on screen and joked it was more action than his own marshal character ever saw. He stood across from John Wayne in "Rio Bravo." Faced off with Clint Eastwood decades later in both "The Outlaw Josey Wales" and "Pale Rider." Six decades in the business, and he was still working well into his sixties, still getting cast as the man you didn't want to cross. Before any of it, before the uniform and the badge and the black hat, he was a UCLA student athlete who got told his own body made him unfit to serve his country. He proved that wrong in the most literal way possible, standing in the middle of a Pacific island earning medals for the exact kind of composure Hollywood would later pay him to fake. He never talked about Guadalcanal much in interviews. Most of what people know comes from military records, not from him bragging about it. That tells you something too. Rejected for being too tall. Decorated for actual bravery two years later. That's not a Hollywood script. That's just what happened to John Russell before anyone ever called him "Marshal."

• 
  360GameTV (@360GameTV) reported 8 minutes ago

  Here's an example that I was able to “fix”, NPC want use the bridge..just stuck there, so I try to shoot...works... 10 minutes before I had to punck / melee an NPC to a door that he open the door. He stuck on the battlefield....again...@xbox #Halo #halocampaignevolved

• 
  JaeTwoTimez (@Jaetwotimez323) reported 9 minutes ago

  Very next game my teammate couldnt jump at the start of the match. Plus had zero audio. How does a game company allow this many issues @Battlefield @BattlefieldComm @EA_DICE **** is a joke. How do you not have people sitting at computers looking at bugs and code?

• 
  nom👀👀👀 (@nom2609) reported 13 minutes ago

  battlefield, kord breach, broken arrow, menace all waiting for me when i get back…

• 
  Gbuck1968 (@Gbuck1968) reported 13 minutes ago

  @m4xim1l1an @Maliparti4 @MelanieLatest Actually, Malcolm isn’t nearly as wrong as you’ve insinuated, and I’m sure you know that. Your post treats contested legal and historical claims as if they were settled black-letter law. They absolutely are not. UN Resolution 181 was a non-binding recommendation. The Jewish Agency accepted it as a minimum workable arrangement. The Arab side rejected it and went to war. Rejection did not confer title on the rejecters, and the recommendation never acquired the force of law. The 1949 armistice lines that followed were explicitly temporary cease-fire demarcations—not borders. Israel’s agreement to stop fighting at those lines did not convert them into its permanent frontier, any more than an armistice turns a battlefield into a deed of title. UNSC 242 does not say what you claim. It calls for withdrawal “from territories occupied,” deliberately omitting the definite article that would have required return to the 1949 lines. The drafting history is clear: language mandating full withdrawal to those lines was rejected. The resolution also affirms every state’s right to live within “secure and recognized boundaries.” That language exists precisely because the 1949 lines were neither secure nor recognized. Accepting 242 is not an admission that the West Bank was foreign sovereign territory; it is acceptance of a framework for negotiating the status of disputed land captured in a defensive war. Oslo is even more straightforward. The accords are interim self-government arrangements that expressly deferred final-status issues—borders, settlements, Jerusalem, and the status of the territories—to later negotiation. Area A/B/C were administrative zones, not a surrender of sovereignty. Treating them as proof the land “was never Israeli” is simply rewriting the text. The territory in question was never under the recognized sovereignty of a Palestinian Arab state. Jordan’s 1950 annexation was recognized by almost no one. Israel’s post-1967 control therefore did not displace a prior legitimate sovereign; it displaced an illegal occupation by a state that had joined the effort to destroy Israel. Continuous Jewish historical connection to Judea and Samaria predates every modern partition plan and is not erased by temporary lines or interim accords. Military administration and selective application of the laws of occupation are pragmatic governing tools under unresolved final status. They are not judicial confessions that the underlying title belongs to someone else. Courts use the instruments available; they do not thereby rewrite history. Temporary cease-fire lines, a carefully worded Security Council resolution, and interim autonomy deals do not extinguish prior claims or create title for the side that refused partition and lost the wars it started. The West Bank remains disputed territory. Presenting that reality as if it were closed, undisputed law does not make it so. Nice try, Max.

• 
  Swaguley (@swaguley) reported 14 minutes ago

  @TheInfamousEG @Eclipse_Ilx I never played BF2, I was 8 when it came out. My Battlefield training was on Star Wars Battlefront haha I don't have issues with drop shotting, as long as it's balanced and not spammy. Notice in the second clip how you had to hit the ground before you started firing again? That's just a normal jump peek, which I'm fine with. I am arguing against accurate in-air gunfire. As far as I know, they entirely patched out the ability to fire your gun in mid-air and dolphin diving as well

• 
  Team_Radious (@TeamRadious) reported 15 minutes ago

  @JundaFPS @EA_DICE Not so fast, its in the game only like 3 months now. Give them some time in this....live service... (sell cosmetics) game.

• 
  sakaruinaba (@sakaruinaba) reported 17 minutes ago

  @Battlefield who do i need to speak to i got charged twice for something as you in game app on pc is not working right

• 
  Jordan (@Nadroj1999) reported 21 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Maybe learn how to do good maps so people don't complain. Size is not the problem, map design is.

• 
  Sagzee (@IAmSagzee) reported 21 minutes ago

  Observer: I've watched several women in my adult life divorce their husbands, and in almost every case, the children's lives were completely disrupted and damaged. It seems obvious that initiating a divorce harms the kids. Analyst: When you observe that outcome, what specific mechanism are you attributing the damage to? Is it the legal signing of the dissolution, or something that happens before or after? Observer: It's the act of breaking up the family home. The mother decides she's unhappy, files the papers, moves out or forces the father out, and the kids end up anxious, depressed, and struggling in school. The mother's decision caused that collapse. Analyst: That's a natural conclusion because the parent who files the paperwork is the visible trigger of the change. In modern Western courts, women file approximately 70% of divorce petitions. But if we look at the underlying data, we've got to ask whether the legal filing is the root cause or simply the visible tipping point of a system that was already deteriorating. Observer: How could it just be a tipping point if the children were functioning fine until the separation happened? Analyst: That depends on how we measure functioning. Longitudinal studies tracking child wellbeing across decades show that child distress isn't produced by the single event of divorce. Instead, child outcomes are driven by 3 specific structural variables: the level of interparental conflict, the sudden drop in household economic capital, and the reduction in overall parenting bandwidth. Observer: Let's break those down. What does interparental conflict do to a child? Analyst: When 2 parents live in chronic hostility, whether it's active fighting or severe emotional withdrawal, children experience elevated cortisol levels and continuous stress responses. Research shows that children raised in high conflict intact families frequently fare worse across emotional and academic metrics than children whose high conflict parents separated. However, there's a critical nuance here. When a marriage has low visible conflict and parents separate unexpectedly from the child's perspective, the child suffers a severe disruption in predictability. That's where you see the sharpest drop in psychological stability. Observer: So if the marriage wasn't blatantly toxic, the divorce itself creates the harm? Analyst: It exposes the child to a drastic transition without the clear necessity being visible to them. But consider the 2nd variable: economic capital. Splitting 1 household into 2 independent residences instantly increases living expenses by roughly 30% to 50% for both adults. The exact same total income now has to pay 2 mortgages or rents, 2 sets of utility bills, and duplicate household goods. For the primary residential parent, who's statistically the mother in roughly 80% of custody arrangements, this translates to a sharp drop in per capita resources available for the child. Observer: Which leads to worse neighborhoods, worse schools, and more parental stress. Analyst: Exactly. That brings us to the 3rd variable: parenting bandwidth. A single adult managing a household alone has roughly 50% less time and energy to dedicate to emotional support, homework assistance, and monitoring. When a mother appears to have ruined her children's lives, what you're often witnessing is a human system operating under severe resource scarcity and cognitive overload, not necessarily a careless decision. Observer: But why do women initiate 70% of these separations if the economic and developmental outcomes for the household are so risky? Analyst: Because incentives and baseline expectations shifted dramatically over the past 50 years. Prior to the widespread economic entry of women into the workforce and the introduction of no fault divorce laws in the 1970s, exiting a marriage was financially impossible for most women. Today, financial independence means marriage isn't an absolute survival strategy anymore, but an ongoing value proposition. When women perceive a persistent imbalance in domestic labor, emotional safety, or marital satisfaction, the perceived cost of staying eventually exceeds the calculated cost of leaving. Observer: So the exit's an attempt to solve a problem, even if it creates a new set of problems for the children. Analyst: Precisely. It's a trade off under constraint. The human brain naturally connects the person who initiated the change to all the negative fallout that follows. That's a classic cognitive attribution error. It ignores the pre existing silent decay of the relationship, the systemic costs of running 2 households on 1 pool of wealth, and the chronic stress of sole parenting. Observer: If we wanted to predict which children survive a parental split with minimal harm, what variables actually determine the outcome? Analyst: Predictability and stability. The data's clear: children adapt remarkably well if 2 conditions are met. Condition 1: interparental conflict must drop to near zero post separation, meaning parents don't use the child as a messenger or battlefield. Condition 2: financial and structural stability must be maintained so the child doesn't lose their school, peer network, or consistent contact with both capable parents. When those conditions are absent, outcomes deteriorate rapidly regardless of which parent filed the petition. Observer: That shifts the perspective entirely. The problem isn't simply the mother leaving the marriage. The problem's that our social and economic structures aren't designed to maintain stability when a 2 adult system splits into 2 single adult systems. Analyst: That's the transferable principle. Whenever you analyze a failing system, whether it's a family, a business partnership, or a nation state, focusing solely on the party that triggers the exit obscures the structural pressures that made the original arrangement nonviable. Reality doesn't punish the formal act of dissolution. Reality responds to the redistribution of conflict, time, and resources.

• 
  David (@1Baph0met) reported 23 minutes ago

  @hasanthehun Battlefield wasn't bad. It's clear you're out of touch with gaming. DEI and live service everything is infact killing games.