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:

• 
  John (@DownHomeJohn) reported 27 seconds ago

  @Battlefield @BattlefieldComm Still need to fix the kill tally towards Ace rewards.

• 
  LiCHtsLiCH (@Barbaneth) reported 7 minutes ago

  @volcaholic1 Well don't let it get you down. The vast majority are just dog piling, it's good for your revenue stream, but disassociate yourself from it. One of the problems of fame. But please don't let it get you down. Nothing wrong with having a point of view, and even though I may disagree with the science of it, doesn't make it a valid fear. In alot of instances, well most, I fully agree with you, if what you say is true, we are in for one hell of a ride. More importantly, it seems that a large chunk of the cause is actually an abscence, which, in all likelyhood, from a scientific pov, we are headed for more extremes, which is just fine. This is far from unexpected, and certainly something we can deal with. Beyond that, if you can think of it as grace, this good weather, we have summarily wasted it, which is far more frightening. Rather than becoming more prepared, we have become less prepared. Emergency stations set up 20 years ago, gone into disuse, suddenly called upon by inexperienced place holders like the Covid emergency response team. Bear in mind, this is a lack of experience cause by a lack of event. Like battlefield soldiers who have never seen combat. A sense of readiness is paramount to a quick response, and you are the literal tip of the spear when it comes to a sense of motivation and concern that people should have. Maybe pivot your approach to one of preparedness, rather than the cause. The cause isn't the point, mostly beause we can't do anything about it, and partly because it may not be the cause. So how would you outline a response beyond or integrating existing emergency protocols? Even going over the material requirements for triage encampments, set up for disaster recovery, and logistics resource acquisition and communication could seriously mitigate a Katrina response that 3 days in was "what do we do?".

• 
  Julian Waller 📖 (@JulianWaller) reported 8 minutes ago

  Happy to state plainly that I'm going to need a *lot* more on how tactical nuclear weapon employment fits into the picture here. It doesn't match the pattern of horizontal escalation, it's not anywhere close to a doctrinal next step under any escalation model, there are no sudden battlefield losses or fundamental threats to the inviolability of the state, 'we need to shake ourselves out of stagnation seems entirely disproportionate, and it would be obviously destabilizing to both friendly foreign relations and domestic audiences. I have no problem withholding judgment or doing the 'analyst must just sit and wait' thing. But I'm really not convinced by the chatter.

• 
  Xela the Brotaku (@XelatheBrotaku) reported 9 minutes ago

  @trenthegent21 @usa_specialist @Battlefield My guess would be to fine-tune the mode and deal with any lingering issues that they probably didn't think about or didn't care to address, given that both were initially limited time modes.

• 
  Psycho Fella (@Psycho_Fella) reported 11 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.

• 
  Battlefield Bulletin (@BFBulletin) reported 13 minutes ago

  @GGuuuBB I would say it's 'quite effective' in comparison with other anti-cheats. I haven't found a single cheater in Battlefield 6, but rather in-game issues 🥲

• 
  nolawhereelsetogo (@angrynolasports) reported 13 minutes ago

  @freakofxeets Why fix what isnt broke? Madden. NBA. COD. Battlefield. Fallout. The money makers haven’t changed either. People Want pick up and play.

• 
  Chris Daulton (@blackvaultchris) reported 13 minutes ago

  @bennyjohnson There are no men in the WNBA. Nobody is advocating that there be one. You weirdos have created a battlefield for a hypothetical problem that doesn't exist.

• 
  Jimothy Lewis (@RichardTLewis) reported 13 minutes ago

  @technotumbum @owenjonesjourno I am not besmirching veterans, I am commenting on the state of your third world American VA based on reports that seemingly emerge once a week. Its why the majority of service members die at home, not in the battlefield, but you don't give a **** about them..

• 
  Erick Ybarra (@ErickYbarra3) reported 14 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.

• 
  GI Joey (@GI_Joey_) reported 15 minutes ago

  @MrProWestie Still doesn't fix the SBMM and CHEATER issues mate. Come on, be honest, like you did years ago...about Battlefield 3, 4, 1 and 5. Rightnow you sound like someone who's being "bribed". Be honest again! Be the "Westie" you was...and tell us what the real problems are of MW4! 👊

• 
  JTCrawford (@JtCrawford) reported 16 minutes ago

  FBI seized Chinese botnet tools used against NASA, DOE, and Senate networks. When adversaries penetrate critical infrastructure with impunity, it's not just an IT problem—it's proof we're not treating cyberspace like the battlefield it is. #Cybersecurity #CriticalInfrastructure

• 
  WorldMonitor (@1NightmareFuel) reported 18 minutes ago

  @hrplays7 Battlefield is better overall and cod is for children hence the slop skins and their downgrade in grit from world at war to airsoft looking maps, but battlefield also has issues.

• 
  Jared (@The_Scrinn) reported 20 minutes ago

  @Battlefield fix your ******* rockets for **** sake

• 
  NATO Allied Joint Force Command Brunssum - JFCBS (@NATOJFCBS) reported 28 minutes ago

  Drones are the challenge of the present. Two recent stories say it all: 🇸🇰In Slovakia, three people were arrested over an alleged plot to set fire to a drone manufacturing facility. 🇵🇱 In Warsaw, the city is investing around PLN 1 million in a system to detect and identify drones over sensitive areas. One story is about protecting our drones. The other about protecting ourselves from them. Drones are no longer just a battlefield issue. @Poland_MOD @Slovakia_NATO #WeAreNATO