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:

• 
  Pedro49er (@Pedro49er) reported 2 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm Been having issues like that since season 3. Disconnects have been driving me absolutely nuts for more than a month.

• 
  나비 (@changemindlike) reported 5 minutes ago

  @ToonHive The Iran conflict is becoming an economic issue as well as a foreign policy issue. Oil prices and shipping risks can quickly affect households far from the battlefield.

• 
  Hamilton (@Debt_Ledger) reported 5 minutes ago

  Bezalel Smotrich's Gaza plan is a budget commitment, not just a battlefield slogan. Military rule and resettlement would turn Gaza into recurring outlays, security costs, and reconstruction bills — the kind of policy that converts ideology into a taxpayer problem.

• 
  Terri Green (@TerriGreenUSA) reported 8 minutes ago

  We don’t win the battle here, you can’t, can’t fight. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world,” John 18. “If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would” – what? – “fight.” 2020 Clarity: Reflecting on God’s Goodness in the Last Year — John MacArthur // January 17, 2021 Oh, guess what? We don’t win down here, we lose. You ready for that? Oh, you were a post-millennialist, you thought we were just going to go waltzing into the kingdom if you took over the world? No, we lose here – get it. It killed Jesus. It killed all the apostles. We’re all going to be persecuted. “If any man come after Me, let him” – what? – “deny himself.” Garbage of prosperity gospel. No, we don’t win down here. You ready for that? Just to clear the air, I love this clarity. We don’t win. We lose on this battlefield, but we win on the big one, the eternal one. If the new administration supports religious freedom, get ready; persecution will be ramped up because the more supportive they are of the devil’s lies, the less they’re going to tolerate the truth of Scripture. We condemn every lie, and we call every person to this: there’s one true God, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. You’ll have no other gods before Me.” Right? There’s salvation in one name and one name only: that’s Jesus Christ. We will proclaim the exclusivity of the gospel, the unique revelation authority of Scripture. We’re not going to lobby for freedom of religion. What kind of nonsense is that? We are in the world to expose all those lies as lies. So this is just part of what’s been on my mind. Oh, so many things. Well, I’m not going anywhere, so there’s always next week. But John – I really did intend to get a little further than this – but John 15, just read a couple of verses here. Our Lord talks to the disciples, chapter 15, verse 19. Verse 19 – well, verse 18, let’s start there. “If the world hates you, you know that it has,” what? We don’t win here, you get this? They killed Him, they killed the apostles, and in every generation they kill the people who proclaim the truth. “You know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world,” – verse 19 – “the world would love its own; but because you’re not of the world,” – so if you want the world to love you, you’ve got to convince them that you’re not against them. But we are against them, not out of animosity, but out of love. “If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you’re not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.” Chapter 16, verse 33, all the way at the end of that chapter our Lord says the end of the verse, “In the world you’ll have trouble. Take courage,” – what? – “I’ve overcome the world.” We don’t win the battle here, you can’t, can’t fight. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world,” John 18. “If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would” – what? – “fight.” We’re not fighting this world, we get it.“Blessed are those who are persecuted.” No, we don’t win here. In fact, it gets worse, doesn’t it? Evil men get worse and worse. I mean, read the prophetic declarations of our Lord in the sermon on His second coming. Read the book of Revelation. It’s not going to get better, it’s going to get continually worse. And every generation of Christians is going to suffer for two reasons: because the world hates it, and because suffering perfects our faith and gives validity to our testimony. So we’re not going to win.

• 
  Fruityland (@FruitylandTV) reported 15 minutes ago

  Biggest gripe I have with Battlefield 6 is the Weapon Damage Overhaul they made, as it is very inconsistent - one moment I shoot an enemy player and down him in 4-5 bullets as you should and then it takes me an entire magazine from the same weapon and same range to deal like 25-30 damage. They need to look over the system because it makes the game frustrating - every game feels miserable because one moment you are clearing the objective from enemies and then you get outbeamed by a pea shooter from a mile away. Some will say that I am most likely hitting enemy players in their legs and arms which would deal less damage, but plenty of times I would get 3-4 headshots on the guy only for him to walk away like it was nothing, and it happened to me on the receiving end - a lot of times an enemy player would shoot me in the back, empty his entire clip, only for me to do a 180 and end him in 2-3 shoots from the same gun that would take 6-7 bullets to kill. @Battlefield @BattlefieldComm - please fix! P.S. - the damage system on Tsuru Reef with the waves is broken and not working as it should, because if you just have your toe in water, you receive reduced damage as if you were underwater. Plenty of clips here on X, reddit and other social media platforms showing this problem.

• 
  🕷🕸 🇮🇹 🇬🇭 (@Dark_army__) reported 19 minutes ago

  @xXSilver_BackXx @Battlefield I told you This game it's broken 💀🥶💀🥶💀🥶💀🥶

• 
  kirito _4kirigaya (@K4kirigaya) reported 22 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm Couldn't load? What's going on with this pop up on PS5? "We can't load some data, so we'll take you back to the start menu. Check your internet connection and make sure the Platform Client is online before you try again." Error code: 14: 137005S: 137013S: 137015S

• 
  cat of flies 🐊 (@am3binh425) reported 22 minutes ago

  @swaguley BF6 is cleary inspired by MW2019 and this ain't a problem by itself. The main problem is that the gunplay doesn't look like Battlefield at all!

• 
  Pr0ve Me Wrong (@Exiting12DJail) reported 23 minutes ago

  THE UNIVERSAL REMEDY EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW — PART 1 How to Hold Police Officers Accountable Under Penalty of Perjury In my last post, I exposed what the Mollen Commission proved: the system lies. Officers perjure themselves. Prosecutors ignore it. Supervisors look the other way. Good cops are silenced; bad cops get promoted. Now that we know the problem, the question is simple: What can you do about it? This post provides a practicable, step‑by‑step blueprint for interacting with police officers in a courtroom. "What about prosecutors?" you might ask. That is the subject of my next post—a separate, detailed blueprint for holding prosecutors accountable when they file charges or represent the state. But first, let's start where most of us encounter the system: with law enforcement. 1. A Note on Where This Blueprint Applies This post is a blueprint for formal, recorded interactions—specifically, interactions that take place in a courtroom or other official proceeding. It is not a blueprint for a roadside traffic stop, a field interview, or any other informal encounter where there is no judge, no record, and no procedural framework. The dynamic is completely different. If you would like a post outlining how to handle a roadside encounter—including how to assert your rights without escalating the situation—let me know in the comments. I will put together a separate blueprint for that scenario. For now, this post is for the courtroom. 2. The Core Principle Unverified complaints are worthless. Sworn testimony is the gold standard. Legally, an unsworn complaint carries no evidentiary weight and creates no personal accountability. It is nothing more than an allegation on paper — a claim with no liability attached. A verified complaint is different. It is sworn under penalty of perjury. It carries consequences. It creates accountability. That is why the remedy begins here: Demand a verified complaint — sworn, signed, and personally accountable. Sworn statements carry penalties for perjury. Unsworn allegations do not. 3. What a Verified Complaint Looks Like A verified complaint is a sworn statement, signed under oath, with a declaration like: "I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct." Key elements: - The accuser's name and signature - Names of any witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the events - A declaration that the statement is made under penalty of perjury - The date of signing - Specific factual allegations based on firsthand knowledge Why this matters: A verified complaint creates personal accountability for the officer. If the complaint contains false statements, the officer can be prosecuted for perjury or false statements. 4. Why We Ask Questions Instead of Making Statements Most people walk into a courtroom believing they must defend themselves. They accept the label "defendant" without ever asking whether that label reflects the truth of the situation. But here is a thought I have wrestled with for years — a question that reveals the inversion at the heart of the system: "If the state makes the claim, and the burden always lies with the party who asserts a claim, then doesn't the state have the burden to prove its case? And if the state must prove its claim, who is the real defendant?" This question exposes the contradiction. Procedurally, the court calls you the defendant. Logically, you have made no claims. Strategically, you have nothing to defend. Morally, you stand in truth, not illusion. The state made the allegation. The state carries the burden. The state must prove its claim. Your role is not to defend yourself — your role is to examine the claim. And you do that by asking questions. Questions: - do not shift burden - do not concede anything - do not create liability - do not strengthen the accusation Questions keep the burden exactly where it belongs: on the party who made the allegation. This is pure strategy — the same strategy Sun Tzu taught: "The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy’s will to be imposed on him." You impose your will by asking questions. You avoid their will by refusing to make claims. You are not defending. You are examining. You are not on the stand. They are. 5. Cause and Effect: Why You Must Only Ask Questions Most people instinctively answer questions when they are asked. It feels natural, even polite. That is exactly what the system wants. When you answer their questions or make statements in response to their accusations, you are following their script, their narrative, and their will. You are on their turf. You are playing their game. You are defending—and when you defend, you lose. Here is the cause and effect: What You Do = What Actually Happens You answer their questions= You are following their script. You are on their turf. You are accepting their framing. You make statements = You are making claims that can be challenged, twisted, or used against you. You only ask questions = You impose your will on the encounter. You control the narrative. You force them to defend their claims. The principle is simple: "He who asks the questions controls the conversation." "He who answers questions follows the other's script." When you answer questions, you are giving them the power to define the narrative. You are accepting their version of events, their framing, and their assumptions. Even if you are telling the truth, you are doing it on their terms. When you ask questions, you take that power back. You decide what topics to address. You decide when and how to address them. You are no longer defending—you are examining. You are not on the stand. They are. 6. Statements Are Claims. Questions Are Not. When you make a statement, you are making a claim. That claim can be challenged, twisted, or used against you. When you ask a question, you are placing the burden on the other person. They must answer. They must explain. They must commit—or back down. That is why I frame every legal citation as a question. Example: "For the record and for a point of clarification, is it true that under 18 U.S.C. § 1621, any materially false statement made under oath constitutes perjury, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison?" You are not asserting the law. You are asking them to confirm the law. If they say "yes," they have acknowledged the consequences. If they say "no," they reveal ignorance. Either way, you have not made a claim—you have asked a question. 7. Using Case Law Without Making Claims Most people use case law incorrectly. They quote precedent as statements, which means they are making claims — and claims create burden. For example, many people say: "This case says I have the right to travel." That is a claim. It is an argument. It puts burden on you. It invites conflict. It places you in a defensive posture. But there is a better way — the remedy way. You convert precedent into a question, not a statement: "For the record and for a point of clarification, is it true that in [insert case] the court recognized the right to travel?" You did not make a claim. You did not argue. You simply asked them to confirm their own precedent. If they say yes, they acknowledge the authority of their own case law. If they say no, they reveal ignorance of their own system. Either way: You have not made a claim — you have asked a question. This is how you use their statutes, codes, regulations, and case law—without ever stepping into the trap of making claims. You use their system against itself, but you do it in the form of a question. This is pure Sun Tzu: "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." You do not fight. You do not argue. You do not claim. You do not defend. You ask questions. You examine. You impose your will. You force them to stand behind their own laws, their own cases, and their own words. You are not on the stand. They are. 8. Biblical Authority: The Moral Foundation for Truth and Accountability The call for truth and the condemnation of false witness are not modern legal inventions. They are ancient, foundational principles that carry divine weight. The Bible is unequivocal: bearing false witness is a sin with profound consequences. The foundation is laid in the Ninth Commandment: "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor." — Exodus 20:16 The Book of Proverbs repeatedly reinforces this: "A false witness will not go unpunished, and whoever pours out lies will not go free." — Proverbs 19:5 "A truthful witness does not lie, but a false witness breathes out lies." — Proverbs 14:5 "A lying witness will perish, but the one who reports accurately speaks forever." — Proverbs 21:28 In the New Testament, Yeshua elevated the standard further: "Let your word be 'Yea, yea' or 'Nay, nay'; anything more than this comes from the evil one." — Matthew 5:37 This principle is echoed by the apostle James: "Let your 'Yes' be yes, and your 'No,' no, so that you will not fall under judgment." — James 5:12 A person's word should be their bond. It should be so reliable that a sworn oath is simply a formal confirmation of their habitual truthfulness. When the Mollen Commission exposed a system where "testilying" had become routine, it was not just a legal failure—it was a profound moral one. The Bible commands that we not bear false witness. The practical steps in this post are the way to hold false witnesses accountable. 9. The Accountability Toolkit: Questions to Ask Police Officers These questions are not random. They are a structured sequence designed to: - lock the officer into their written complaint - force verification under penalty of perjury - eliminate hearsay - expose ignorance - attach personal liability - freeze the record Every question begins with: "For the record and for a point of clarification…" This signals that everything said next is entering the record — the battlefield where truth is measured and lies are exposed. Each question has a purpose. Each question moves the burden. Each question tightens the frame. You are not defending. You are examining. And the record is the witness. Question 1: Lock Them Into Their Complaint: "For the record and for a point of clarification, is there anything in your complaint that you would like to change, or does it stand exactly as written?" Why this works: It forces the officer to either commit or admit inconsistency. If they say they want to change something: "Then the complaint is not accurate as written. Please provide the corrected version." If they say it stands as written: "Thank you. For the record, you have confirmed that the complaint stands exactly as written. I will hold you to every word." Question 2: Demand Verbal Verification Under Oath: "Now, for the record and for a point of clarification, are you prepared to verify your complaint verbally on the record under penalty of perjury and accept personal liability for your claims?" Why this works: They have already committed to the complaint. Now they must either: - Say "Yes" —which means they are now on record, under oath, with full personal liability. - Say "No" —which means they are unwilling to stand behind their own complaint under oath. Question 3: Ask About Firsthand Knowledge: "For the record and for a point of clarification, do you have firsthand knowledge of this matter, or are you relying on secondhand information?" Why this works: It eliminates hearsay. If they are relying on secondhand information, they cannot verify the complaint under oath. Question 4: Ask About the Mollen Commission: "For the record and for a point of clarification, are you aware of the Mollen Commission's 1994 findings—that police perjury and falsification of official records is probably the most common form of police corruption facing the criminal justice system?" Why this works: It reminds the officer that their own system has a documented history of lying under oath. Question 5: Ask About the Laws (Question Form): "For the record and for a point of clarification, is it true that under 18 U.S.C. § 1621, any materially false statement made under oath constitutes perjury, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison?" "For the record and for a point of clarification, is it true that under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, any materially false statement made in a federal matter—even outside of court—is a felony, also punishable by up to five years in prison?" "For the record and for a point of clarification, is it true that under the Administrative False Claims Act, false written statements can result in civil penalties of up to $14,308 per claim, plus double damages?" Why this works: You are not telling them the law. You are asking them to confirm the law. Question 6: Demand the Verified Complaint "For the record and for a point of clarification, is it correct that a sworn, verified complaint submitted under penalty of perjury, with full personal liability accepted by the accuser, is the only complaint that carries legal weight?" Why this works: It forces the officer to acknowledge that an unsworn complaint is worthless. Question 7: Document Everything "For the record and for a point of clarification, will you confirm your responses in writing? I will be documenting every statement made and every question asked." Why this works: It creates a paper trail that can be used later. 10. The "Seal the Deal" Exchange Before you ever step into a courtroom, you must understand one principle: You are not speaking to the judge. You are not speaking to the officer. You are not speaking to the prosecutor. You are speaking to the record. The record is everything. The record is what: - the appellate court reads - higher courts review - the system relies on - truth is measured against - lies are exposed by Your questions establish the record. Their answers establish the record. The judge is simply the person through whom the record is created. The officer is simply the person whose statements enter the record. The prosecutor is simply the person whose claims must withstand the record. Your dialogue with the plaintiff is not personal. It is not emotional. It is not argumentative. It is procedural. You are using them to set the record straight. Every question you ask: - freezes the narrative - locks in their claims - attaches liability - exposes contradictions - documents their knowledge - documents their ignorance - documents their refusal - documents their verification - documents their hesitation You are not on the stand. They are. And the record is the witness. Here is how the complete exchange sounds in practice: You: "For the record and for a point of clarification, is it correct that unsworn allegations have no evidentiary weight and create no personal accountability?" Officer: "I don't know." You: "For the record, you are stating you are unaware. Let me ask you this: is it true that under 18 U.S.C. § 1621, perjury is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison?" Officer: "Yes." You: "Thank you. For the record, you have confirmed you are aware of the penalty for perjury. Now, is there anything in your complaint you would like to change, or does it stand exactly as written?" Officer: "It stands as written." You: "Thank you. For the record, you have confirmed the complaint stands as written. I will hold you to every word. Now, are you prepared to verify that complaint verbally on the record under penalty of perjury and accept personal liability?" 11. Stay On Point. Stay In Your Lane. There is one piece of advice more important than anything else in this entire post: Stay on point. Stay in your lane. Judges are masters at getting you to follow their narrative. They will hammer you with questions. They will interrupt you. They will try to pull you into their framing. They will try to make you defend yourself. They will try to make you argue. They will try to make you explain. They do this five days a week. You don’t. They have special training in getting people to make mistakes, lose focus, and follow the court’s script instead of their own. Your job is simple: Do not fall for it. Do not take the bait. Do not follow their narrative. Do not answer their questions. Do not defend yourself. Do not explain anything. Stay on point. Your point is always the same: You ask questions. They answer questions. The record is established. That’s it. You are not there to argue. You are not there to explain. You are not there to defend. You are not there to adopt their framing. You are there to examine the claim — and you do that by asking questions. Every time they try to pull you off your point, return to your lane: "For the record and for a point of clarification…" This resets the battlefield. This resets the narrative. This resets the record. This resets the burden. 12. When They Become Belligerent At some point, they will become belligerent. It might be the judge. It might be the prosecutor. It might be the officer. They will raise their voice. They will press you. They will try to provoke you. They will try to pull you off your point. When that happens, do not escalate. Do not match their energy. Do not follow their narrative. Instead, do something simple and powerful: A calm, centered response disarms hostility and resets the encounter. Try something like this: "Have I offended you in any way? And if I have, will you forgive me?" This resets the entire encounter. It disarms hostility. It breaks their momentum. It centers you. It keeps you in your lane. It keeps you on point. It reminds them — and you — that: Blessed are the peacemakers. Then return to your point: "For the record and for a point of clarification…" You are not there to fight. You are not there to argue. You are not there to defend. You are not there to adopt their framing. You are there to examine the claim and establish the record. And remember: It’s not what the judge, the cop, or the prosecutor says that creates liability for you — it’s what you say. So stay on point. Your point, not theirs. If you lose your point, you lose the encounter. If you stay on point, you control the encounter. Stay On Point. 13. The Closing Question Everything in this post leads to one question—the question you must ask every police officer who makes a claim against you: "Are you aware of the Mollen Commission's findings? Are you prepared to verify your claim under penalty of perjury and accept personal accountability for every word you say?" That question changes everything. The Commission documented that the system lies. Now you must demand the truth—under penalty of perjury. 14. What Comes Next This post is only the beginning. You now understand how to hold police officers accountable under penalty of perjury — the first point of contact with the system, and the foundation of everything that follows. But the next stage is even more important. In Part 2, we move deeper into the system — to the people who turn allegations into charges: the prosecutors. You will learn: - how to force prosecutors to verify every claim - how to expose hearsay in charging documents - how to demand sworn affidavits - how to attach personal liability to prosecutorial claims - how to use their own rules of professional conduct - how to use the advocate‑witness rule - how to freeze the record before trial - how to prevent them from hiding behind procedure Part 1 teaches you how to confront the officer's complaint, Part 2 teaches you how to confront the prosecutor in the courtroom. The remedy continues. Stay on point. Your point, not theirs. Part 2 is coming. Know Thyself. Free Thyself.

• 
  Alex DeWolf (@TrackNetWorth) reported 24 minutes ago

  @WarMonitor3 Institutional lag is real because defense procurement always fights the last conflict while software eats the battlefield

• 
  Eduardo Terra (@_duterra) reported 25 minutes ago

  @BFBulletin Battlefield 7, the most broken battlefield ever released? Let’s see…

• 
  Azr (@AzariusRyan) reported 26 minutes ago

  @petty_sean @BattlefieldComm I can play Tsuru Reef on an Intel Arc A series card fine though, wtf did Nvidia do to make even the top dawg 5090 having issues with the water lmao

• 
  Giona Strazzacappa (@Pano_077) reported 32 minutes ago

  @EA_DICE i dont know why but the audio is bugged once i upload the video, the original dont have this issue 💔

• 
  V (@catslashmouse) reported 33 minutes ago

  @user98765146435 @GhostGamingG @Battlefield I would expect they release several years of updates because it’s been many years. None of them reverted key design flaws (64v64 should’ve been completely axed, along with on the fly attachment customization) and technical issues such as mouse input remain unresolved. Just a few

• 
  DANNYonPC (@DANNYonPC) reported 36 minutes ago

  @TheThurston13 @Battlefield Nah mate, actual skill issue there not an issue of spread or even hipfire.