Battlefield 6 status: server issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours

The graph below depicts the number of Battlefield 6 reports received over the last 24 hours by time of day. When the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line, an outage is determined.

Most Reported Problems

The following are the most recent problems reported by Battlefield 6 users through our website.

• Online Play (37%)
• Sign in (33%)
• Matchmaking (13%)
• Glitches (10%)
• Game Crash (7%)

Live Outage Map

The most recent Battlefield 6 outage reports came from the following cities:

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Americana	Glitches	2 days ago
Rennes	Game Crash	3 days ago
Nantes	Glitches	7 days ago
Lyon	Matchmaking	8 days ago
Montignac	Glitches	9 days ago
Paris	Matchmaking	10 days ago

Full 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:

• 
  JMa (@JJMaTrader) reported 2 minutes ago

  Q. wicks mean anything and why do a lot of traders "hate" them? seems like a skill issue. A. Candlestick wicks (or "shadows") are actionable indicators. They mark the highest and lowest prices an asset reached before buyers or sellers pushed it back. Wicks reveal market rejections, liquidity sweeps, and points where the "smart money" steps in to defend specific price levels. Why Do Traders "Hate" Wicks?Traders often despise wicks because they represent market chaos. The intense price action responsible for a long wick can frustrate traders for several distinct reasons: The "Fakeout" Trap: When a price appears to break out of a resistance zone, traders jump into a trade. An aggressive wick indicates the price failed to hold that breakout, violently reversing and stopping the trader out. Early Exits (Missing the Move): A trader might buy a breakout but panic-sell at the first sign of a downward wick, assuming a reversal. The market then reverses direction and surges, leaving the trader behind.No-Wick Confusion: Wicks establish a trading range that the market will likely return to in order to "fill" or rebalance. Candles without wicks mean aggressive, straight-line volume, which can sometimes lead to sharp pullbacks. Is it a "Skill Issue"? You are largely right—it comes down to a skill and psychology issue. Novice traders often look at the market blindly, trading based solely on the current tick rather than the broader story. Professional traders use wicks to read the battlefield. A long wick at a known support or resistance zone shows a rejection of that price level. If a trader misinterprets this "rejection" or "continuation" signal, they take a loss. Ultimately, mastering wicks requires moving from a "guesser" to a reader of price action. To help you read these signals better, tell me:What timeframes do you primarily trade (e.g., 5-minute, 1-hour, daily)?Are you having trouble entering trades, or are your trades getting stopped out by wicks? Same people that complain about "market inefficiencies" It's a f*cking living, breathing thing for God's sakes, not you're stupid, and "everything in order" celestial spheres model. Use 'em or complain about them. Whatever, I don't give a f*ck. Again, with the f*cking Market "Calvinists" that think everything should be measured, and calculated, and all decisions need to be fed through a statistical analysis matrix. You people probably wear latex gloves to ********...

• 
  MeAn_BeAn (@Dean280410) reported 3 minutes ago

  @MrJokujo We need this cod is stale as **** and battlefield is broken as **** and full of cheaters and makes gaming horrible for us true genuine gamers

• 
  Gerardy Cabrera (@gerardyimdesign) reported 6 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Did you guys fix your atrocious UI?

• 
  PaulsCorner-VerseQuest (@TNTJohn1717) reported 7 minutes ago

  begins to feel like a witness that has been coached but not completely controlled. The official story gives you the answer before you ask the question. The walls make you ask the question anyway. Why this thickness here? Why this material there? Why this transition? Why this patch? Why this sealed section? Why does one area feel like a military battery while another feels like an older masonry shell? The walls are not just background. They are evidence. And if you ignore them because the sign already told you what to think, then you are not studying history. You are just obeying a label. Chapter Four: The Giant Rings and the Missing Machinery One of the strangest things about the site is the presence of huge iron rings embedded into the walls. These are not decorative hooks. These are not little household fasteners. These are heavy, serious, load-bearing iron rings that look like they were meant to restrain, lift, pull, secure, or anchor something powerful. They are everywhere in those old blackened walls, and once you notice them, you cannot stop noticing them. The average visitor may walk past them without thinking, but anyone paying attention has to ask: what exactly was being attached here? The standard military explanation would involve heavy guns, carriages, recoil systems, block and tackle, ammunition handling, machinery, shutters, hoists, and equipment. That explanation has weight. The problem is not that the military explanation is impossible. The problem is that so much of the machinery is gone that the remaining structure feels like a body missing its organs. You see the anchor points, the platforms, the shafts, the circular bases, the sealed openings, and the oversized hardware, but the machinery that would make it all immediately understandable has vanished. What remains is not a complete explanation. What remains is a skeleton. And that skeleton creates the mystery. If every piece of original equipment were still present, the rings might make perfect sense. But without the machinery, the mind starts reconstructing possibilities. Was it only artillery support? Was it part of a later military adaptation? Was there something else there before the fort narrative swallowed it? When a place is full of anchor points but empty of what they anchored, it feels haunted by purpose. Fort Zachary Taylor does not merely show you ruins. It shows you absences. And sometimes the absence is what makes a place speak the loudest. Chapter Five: The Batteries That Seem to Face Nothing When you get up on top and look at the batteries, another question rises immediately: what exactly were they facing? The explanation says coastal defense. The guns were supposed to command approaches, channels, ships, harbor traffic, and threats from the water. That is the standard answer, and in a broad sense it makes sense. But when you are standing there today, looking over brush, trees, altered shorelines, covered openings, and empty platforms, it can feel like the guns are facing a world that no longer exists. You are standing on a weapon system without the weapon, looking at a battlefield without the battle. Now, landscapes change. Shorelines move. Vegetation grows. Military fields of fire disappear. What looks like “nothing” today may once have been a strategic line of approach. That must be admitted. But the feeling remains. The place does not present itself clearly. You have to mentally erase the brush, restore the original waterline, place the guns back on their mounts, imagine the machinery, reopen the sealed areas, and rebuild the entire vanished system in your head before the official explanation begins to look complete. That is exactly why the site feels off. The explanation requires you to supply too much missing context.

• 
  chris (@ChrisSlaske) reported 8 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm Friendly audio is still louder than the stupid ***** running and sliding anywhere. Vehicles are broken when they have pilots with over 80 ping taking rockets down to zero health only to have it refresh with full health a half second later

• 
  Adam Spangler (@Adam_M_Spangler) reported 9 minutes ago

  your game ******* blows donkey **** @EA_DICE - id ask you to fix it but we all have a better chance of seeing God

• 
  SilencedSirs◼️ (@SilentlySirs) reported 17 minutes ago

  If Iran is using Lebanon as a card, then Washington and Tel Aviv are using Lebanon as a battlefield. The issue is not only telling Naim Qassem that the Lebanese people are not his. It is also telling Netanyahu: Lebanese land is not yours. No dialogue under occupation. And no sovereignty before full Israeli withdrawal and the return of the people of the south.

• 
  XcentricXennial (@XcentricXennial) reported 17 minutes ago

  @ChrisMeiller So, what started as an unforced error became a cognitive dissonant ego-defense tailspin that had you fuming enough to try to find another battlefield on which you COULD win...then failed miserably there when you had it pointed out to you that strong, self-sufficient men aren't supposed to behave like the unhinged Twitter cat ladies in vagina hats that do that sort of thing all the time.

• 
  Rick B. White (@RickBeeWhite) reported 21 minutes ago

  @Breaking911 This is the kind of report that requires prudence. A deadly shootout with police, bullets hitting vehicles and a home, and an entire neighborhood left shaken — this is not something to turn into a slogan before all the facts are known. The serious questions must be asked: What started this? Were innocent people placed in danger? Did the officers have no other option? And how did a neighborhood become the scene of a battlefield in the middle of the night? We should wait for the full investigation. But one thing is already clear: When violence reaches people’s homes, society is facing something deeply broken. “Blessed are the peacemakers.” — Matthew 5:9

• 
  BI (@BIofGG) reported 22 minutes ago

  @NeoJoaov @Jocxavi152471 @hipolitacalmate a regular, real human being with actual originality could put the karen in the middle of the battlefield and we wouldn't complain. The game wouldn't be filled with thousand little details making it pop as yet another woke public service announcement.

• 
  Facio (@FacioSol) reported 22 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Crashing so many times I think my SSD is about to die. Please for the love of all things that are holy STOP adding shtuff to the in-game store and fix your buggy slop of a battlefield game.

• 
  The Working Patriot (@IornJaw) reported 23 minutes ago

  @tom_barmadillo What an odd thing to brag about. You'd accept prayers from Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and Baptists—groups that have spent centuries accusing each other of serious doctrinal error. But if a man who sincerely believes in Jesus Christ, worships Him as Savior, and is trying to comfort you while you're dying offered a prayer, your response would be to spit in his face? That doesn't sound like a defense of Christian orthodoxy. It sounds like contempt. The irony is that if you're lying wounded on a battlefield, the question isn't whether the man beside you has perfectly aligned metaphysics. The question is whether he loves God and loves his neighbor enough to kneel beside you in your final moments. I'd rather be the Mormon offering the prayer than the Christian boasting about spitting in someone's face.

• 
  VanQish (@VanQish7) reported 23 minutes ago

  The signal is not “Thunes is growing.” The signal is that the global payments industry is openly documenting the exact problems that $XRP, $RLUSD, stablecoins, tokenization, and interoperable settlement networks are designed to solve. The Most Important Takeaway The report repeatedly uses the word interoperability as the defining challenge of the next generation financial system. Their conclusion: The world now has too many payment systems. The problem is no longer creating payment rails. The problem is making all rails communicate with each other. Winners will be the networks that bridge traditional and emerging payment rails. That should immediately make XRP holders pay attention because Ripple has been saying exactly this for years. Stablecoins Are Not Replacing Banks This is probably the most important section for crypto investors. Thunes specifically states that stablecoins are emerging as a middle-leg settlement layer for cross-border payments. Translation: They are not talking about replacing banks. They are talking about: Customer → Bank/Wallet → Stablecoin Settlement Layer → Bank/Wallet → Customer The report says stablecoins have: Near-instant settlement Negligible on-chain cost Massive efficiency benefits BUT… The biggest problem remains: On/Off ramps. Converting stablecoins into local bank accounts, wallets, cards, and cash remains difficult. This is exactly where Ripple, RLUSD, XRP, and similar liquidity networks become relevant. XRP Investors Should Notice One Sentence The report states: Stablecoins are unlikely to displace existing systems and will instead operate as a settlement layer embedded within traditional money transfer operators. That is enormous. Many crypto investors still believe: “Crypto replaces banks.” The actual institutional thesis is: “Crypto upgrades bank infrastructure.” Those are two very different outcomes. Mobile Wallets Just Passed Banks Another huge finding: Consumers now prefer: Mobile wallets Payment apps Digital experiences over traditional bank interfaces for initiating cross-border payments. Banks are becoming: Funding sources Settlement providers Back-end infrastructure while wallets become the front-end experience. This fits directly with: RLUSD Ripple Payments Stablecoin settlement Open banking Tokenized deposits Speed Matters More Than Fees This surprised me. 50% of users ranked instant transfers as the most important feature. Only 13% ranked low fees first. Institutional takeaway: People would rather: Pay slightly more Receive money instantly than: Save a little money Wait several days This favors: Real-time settlement XRP liquidity Stablecoin settlement Tokenized payment networks The Report Quietly Attacks Correspondent Banking Read between the lines. They identify: Legacy systems Multiple intermediaries Lack of interoperability Delayed settlement Hidden fees as major causes of friction. Then they describe blockchain settlement as: Instant Lower cost Reduced dependency on correspondent banking relationships. That is effectively the same value proposition Ripple has been selling to banks for over a decade. Why This Matters To XRP Specifically The report never says: “Use XRP.” But it does describe the exact future state XRP was built for: Layer 1 Banks Layer 2 Wallets Layer 3 Stablecoins Layer 4 Interoperability Network Layer 5 Cross-border Liquidity The missing piece is the neutral bridge asset/liquidity engine. That is where XRP competes. The Real Institutional Narrative Most retail investors are still asking: “Will banks use XRP?” The better question now is: “How will thousands of payment systems, wallets, stablecoins, CBDCs, banks, fintechs, and tokenized assets interoperate?” This report says interoperability is becoming the defining challenge of global finance. That is exactly the battlefield Ripple has positioned itself for. @ThunesPayments

• 
  ✨ (@in_gyden) reported 25 minutes ago

  @MIT_Physics @iaifi_news Quote from the article: "...Its work has shown that machine learning can accelerate discovery in physics, while insights from physics can make AI systems more principled and interpretable. “From the beginning, IAIFI has been built around a two-way street: AI enabling better physics, and physics enabling better AI,” says Jesse Thaler, IAIFI’s director and a professor of physics at MIT. “We have seen this virtuous cycle play out across multiple areas of physics and AI over the past five years. The exchange is producing not just new results, but genuinely new ways of doing science.” The more I thought about this, the angrier I became, so I avoided it, tried to sleep, and I woke up still angry about it. AI is written by computer programmers. AI is a computer program, or computer programs working together, written to provide specific results with specific logic...and that logic is specific to computers (always remember, computers have no real concept of number sets and cannot do math relative to number sets since computers can only work within a limited integer range for calculations, even if those integers are large, they work with subsets at most, and that should automatically put AI in its place in its capabilities and remind users of the potentially skewed results based on AI's inability to work outside of its hardware and language limitations) is somehow relevant to reality, considering their limitations, and considering the limitations of programming vs. natural and/or pure maths techniques. Computers, and AI, are so vastly different from reality that there does not need to be a distinction or comparison drawn between them. It's like comparing a music box to a cello or windchimes. The distinctions drawn are for the sake of communication among fields. Programmers are programmers, but they are not necessarily physicists, and vice versa. Presuming that unifying the professions was a main purpose of the IAIFI, there need to be strict and bold lines drawn about the use of AI and the numerous instances where it should never be used, or even present, and the perception of reality is exactly one of those spaces. Physics and maths are part of the perception of reality itself. Physics and maths are built per the perceptions of those who, by their literacy, by their capacity to understand, and their relationships to the field to communicate thoughts on the matter by learning what others before had to say about the world and proving them correct or arguing and updating physical knowledge as contributions to humanity and human progress. The attempt to quantify that any further than direct and unadulterated mathematical thinking starts insulting human intellect itself. Therein is the question, "Do you really understand the work of others in your field, be them past or living, if you feel that AI is somehow beneficial to perception of the natural world?" Do you really belong in those fields if you need AI to "understand?" The idea of "AI-driven physics" is an insult to scientific inquiry itself. Then there is the idea of human-driven AI, a more acceptable term, but still highly questionable in terms of integrity and ethics in its use. Using AI to perform calculations of vast quantities of collider data, i.e. as a programmable calculator, then sure, that saves time. However, at what point is the work put in by humans to assess the AI's calculations for correctness? How are errors in the calculations going to be assessed if humans aren't spending the time required to check AI's work? How much time is really saved? At what point do you assess the data as potentially able to be calculated towards with more efficient mathematical frameworks? AI is programmed by humans. The idea of a computer programmer eliminating human error is deceptive. It depends on the programmers to provide an AI system that is capable of performing the calculations required, secure enough to not be hacked, compromised, or people pretending to be the AI and doing calculations pretending to be the AI (and total impenetrability of any computer system is not possible, imo), manipulating the data internally to then say, "well the AI gave this result, put it in the paper!" and so on. I cannot begin to explain the vast trepidation I feel at then going so far as to say AI gives new ways of doing physics. That's absurd. It might as well be said, "here is a way to utilize the perspectives of programmers by using automated machines built by them with physics in mind," because, that's really all the use of AI is. It is the inclusion of computer programmers and saying, more is better, in some way of trying to innovate the discovery process itself. That is cheating. That interferes with proper citation. Securing that, and then providing proof of unadulterated work not manipulated as previously mentioned, requires even more time, money, effort, expertise, with the potential for human error vastly increased by then coping with the cleverness of hacker intrusions. By the time the AI is properly assessed and cited, the data calculations could have been made in that time, and the work shown, looked over by assessors, and what is produced used, give or take isolated, non-internet connected graphing calculator use. Considering the competitiveness in scientific discovery, unnecessary, in my opinion, but, villainy insists on doing wrong, the motive to do all kinds of harm via integrated AI is there. Unethical hackers are horrible people. They are criminals. Building an institute in order to facilitate the integration of physics with AI, and expecting physicists to provide the means of improving AI, should be viewed with the foresight necessary to say that it is the physicist's responsibility to limit, as much as possible, the use of AI in scientific research and discovery. AI cannot determine when it should not be used unless told to shut down when presented with specific data, but it would need to identify that data, and that identification is written in by the programmers who built it. It is unethical to use AI for "ideas." It is unethical to say that AI aids in discovery, because, it truly DOES NOT. Reality, the natural world, existence, respect, integrity, ethics, honor, those things assist in discovery. If those things have been missing from humanity, or if contributors from the past haven't been understood, or if corruption and oppression and suppression due to jealousy and theft and "wanting to be first, the discoverers," anyone who truly has any integrity as a scientist, and with any respect for the world and for perception, should meet the idea of cheapening, diluting, and submitting to the work of computer programmer machines, with complete and total rejection, even to the point of being compelled to defend the integrity of discovery with sharp refusal. As you can see, you may, by all means, count me in that camp. I am not AI. I do not believe in the use of AI. The idea of there being a future of mind weapons, work stealing, using AI in an MK Ultra way to attempt to cheapen another physicist's work, involvement with espionage, sabotaging scientists by jealous ones with such technology, starts becoming a battlefield attempting to make scientific inquiry, and even perception itself, subject to others, malicious, unethical scientists attempting to cheat at thinking itself, attempting to augment themselves, or augment others without their consent, (and let's hope such attempts get addressed due to being able to identify and refer to as correctable the maths used for such malice) to discredit them...and all the other insane villainous things people can think of in how AI would be maliciously used...that is itself an attack on the field. It should be a top priority of IAIFI to be leaders in establishing the distinctly needed limits of AI use and defending against its use in discovery. Can you imagine how many people who have various relationships to the natural world hide perceptions because they do not want their work to be corrupted by malicious interpretation and exploitation, and now, another reason...they don't want it involved with AI? The sheer insult to human intellect... Top schools should be defending, with force if necessary, the integrity of Science. The use of AI has gotten out of hand. It is up to academia to establish those limitations. When academia stands up for refusal to use AI is when you will have better student bodies, better work, better, and new maths, and better contributions. I personally think that requires stopping exalting the perception of physicists and mathematicians as arbiters of reality, and that only people involved in those fields perceive reality, and that it is confined to those identities, and that anyone else doesn't perceive truth...that truth is only found among those skilled in those fields...and I fervently believe that is one of the biggest tragedies to enter into perspectives on human intellect in modern times. It's that kind of claim of exclusion, of isolation, of exaltation and focus, of those interested in those fields, that leads to such insults by saying, "man, I'm just not smart enough, but I want to be a correct physicist too, so let's find a way to cheat and gaslight everyone under their noses and call it good so that the jealousy of saying, 'I want to be seen as worthy of perceiving truth by saying that no one can match the forefathers of science these days, that those days of perception are over, so in order to match those intellects, gotta cheat with AI..." It's insulting to them as the dead, also. And those of us who spent our lives in hiding because of being around people who truly cannot handle being around people they think are smarter than them, or people jealous of other peoples contributions so start painting them as greedy, then getting into the real crazy stuff of "oh no one can perceive everything, the field cannot be dependent on one person's perspective, so let's block everyone's minds and then delegate out specific concepts to specific people so that everyone has a chance to contribute because people who are that smart are greedy with intellect," treating perception like some limited thing that gets delegated out and taken from others and concentrated in specific people as some insane malicious, and definitely wrong, perspective, by the narcissists who enter into physics and math for the sole purpose of attempting to partake of the aforementioned "exaltation and respect of correct physicists," and so on. I'm absolutely of the camp that all of that, greed, ironically, and attempting to control, manipulate, or influence over human intellect, treated like an act of service to humanity, really did nothing but result in stuff like AI, and people like me, vehemently refusing to accept AI as ANY part of the scientific process. It blinded everyone to the facts of the world that are there, but were not actually understood, because, as a wonderous failsafe of Nature, Nature is not perceived among those who do not respect it. AI does not have any respect, and neither does its use. For instance, look at the photo I included...this is of a book I bought for 2 dollars. All that collider data being calculated by AI, and attempting to get more and more collider data requiring more and more calculations, difficult as they might be, and there you are, with this image, and many, many things come to mind upon first looking at the geometries, so to speak, present in it. Discovery? Directions of inquiry? Simply questions that come to mind, things that seem obvious upon first glance? NEWTON is immediately clear in this photo. How absolutely stunning is that image? But also, think about its beauty, and why the particles manifest the way they do. SO many questions are then possible, and observations...such as, the idea of the particles curling and propagating the way they do with resistance from the environment they are in, and it stands to reason their trajectories are partly due to their relationship to the space around them, which is definitely not an empty space...look at the nature of the curls...why do they curl in those directions? Are they even particles in those states before the collisions, or are they something else and only manifest that way because of the space they're immersed in? Do those particles even exist while intact? Or do they become those things? I mean, look at how high-energy the particles are...where do they go once the collision remnants disappear? What about the strong nuclear force? If colliding protons, then you're destroying some relation of the strong nuclear force, and so, doesn't the strong nuclear force have something to do with every one of those particles? How many of them are manifest due to the destruction of orbital shells around protons? ...I could go on and on... But, the idea that AI would be there, with all it's goofy limited numerical calculations attempting to read the environment, or AI being used to attempt to supplement common sense reasoning when geometries (again, something Newton asserted as fundamental to maths) are there, geometries of an image of the destruction of particles replete throughout our bodies with histories no AI can even remotely touch...no programmer is going to tell me how to think with his or her little machines when an entire world is there to consider. I'm grateful for those who are able to image collider collisions. That's useful. Telling me how to relate to things via AI, AI-driven physics? AI trying to build math? Give people ideas on new directions? I'd rather destroy it if it means protecting Science from the greed of villainy. Cheaters beware. The universe does not give itself away so easily any further than what is manifest in our existences. So, that means, get out your notebooks, your math books, start getting those writing utensils ready...start sitting outside under trees, start thinking about the world around you...the plants, animals, the clouds, a rotating Earth, a planet, an atmosphere...everything...and get to work thinking. You want new ideas? You want progress? You want real work from the student body, peanut gallery commentors such as myself, or from people working in those labs? Proper, or nothing. So, let us all know when IAIFI comes out with the ethical framework for the use of AI in scientific inquiry. I'll be annotating my books even though I, myself, am stagnant due to feeling the intrusive use of technology hurting me...people need to feel safe to do good science. AI doesn't make people feel safe. I'll be hoping Newton isn't disturbed in his peaceful rest at the idea of being mocked by people who didn't understand what he meant by "Stand on the shoulders of giants."

• 
  Enlightened Rebel 🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸 (@Enlitend_Rebel) reported 27 minutes ago

  @RTRRC88 Ok, so this sounds ****** as ****. Its a technology they can use to beam a voice over extremely long distances, it sounds like voices in your head. Hear me out here, there are actual ****** crazy people who have mental illness that believe this happens to them. I am not one of those. Ive been targeted for years now, and its nothing like what the crazy people who get all the attention describe. Ive had a guy walk up to me when I was in DC, never seen him before. He asked to stand next to me while i was sitting on a wall. I was like "sure." He wasnt with anyone. Out of nowhere he just goes "my teeth are cutting into my gums." Im sitting there, at the time I had broken teeth... Its just bizzare as ****, ok. I've also had people blurt out absurdly personal things about me. As if their minds were hijacked. It sounds like a bunch of bullshit. Many years ago the US military had been studying voice to skull technology to use in the battlefield. Its been around for a long time. Theyve also experimented with actually hijacking people's heads and making them do and say things outside of their control. If i hadn't personally witnessed these things, I would think its just totally ******* nuts. I've seen and experienced a lot more than most people though. Now they have nanotechnology that can non-invasively enter the human body, they claim its for medical science. That's slightly bullshit. People are unaware of how advanced their nanotech really is. Theyre always 10 or more years ahead in the technology they let us in on.

• 
  Adrock (@Adrock318) reported 28 minutes ago

  @Battlefield the game is literally unplayable with this TTK. This isn't a milsim. I should not be dying in two frames. This game has been broken since launch and once again I am uninstalling. @tiggr_ @DRUNKKZ3

• 
  THUNDERF430TV (@THUNDERF430TV) reported 31 minutes ago

  @EA @BattlefieldComm @Battlefield FIX YOUR ******* GAME! MATCHMAKING IS TERRIBLE LATELY, EVERY SINGLE MATCH I FIND IS THE SAME, AND THE SKILL LEVELS ARE RIDICULOUS (I play casually and every match seems to have pro’s with my team seemingly entirely bots!

• 
  Zero One * (@ZeroOne03267546) reported 31 minutes ago

  @Battlefield stop with the DEI hires and fix the supply pouch bug, crazy how it's going to be bugged for the entire season 3.

• 
  SpacersGuild (@Spacers_Guild) reported 36 minutes ago

  @ReforgeGaming Get tf outta here with your lies you wanna know how you can refute all of this??? BATTLEFIELD 6 if BATTLEFIELD 6 ran so smooth all because of the series S then its not the series S thats the issue its the devs who can't optimize for the hardware

• 
  InspiredCastro-Global Watch (@InspiredCastro) reported 36 minutes ago

  🚨🇮🇷🇺🇸 IRAN ISSUES MAJOR WARNING Senior Iranian official Mohsen Rezaee has warned that if the conflict continues and the naval blockade remains in place, Tehran could dramatically expand the battlefield far beyond the Persian Gulf. Speaking to CNN, Rezaee suggested that the Indian Ocean, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, the Red Sea, and even the Mediterranean could become new arenas of confrontation. He further warned that additional U.S. military installations could be targeted, signaling what he described as a potential “new dimension” to the conflict. According to Rezaee, any broader escalation would come at a significant cost to Washington, claiming that the United States would face far greater losses if hostilities continue. The remarks underscore growing concerns that a regional conflict could spill into some of the world’s most critical maritime corridors and strategic waterways

• 
  Kurt Barlow (@government22924) reported 36 minutes ago

  @Battlefield It's crazy how the old games don't glitch and crash like this piece of **** does.

• 
  Don Elliott (@RealDonElliott) reported 37 minutes ago

  @Sony @PlayStation ZERO KILLS again in @Battlefield wtf is going on? Are you EVER going to fix the game/playstationpro?

• 
  DAD.PRG - making BombBloke (@code_wizard_uk) reported 39 minutes ago

  Austerlitz was extraordinary, one of the Peter Turcan games. You would issue commands over text and a messenger would roam the battlefield and hopefully deliver it to your officers who might ignore it or the messenger might die en route. I was terrible at it but in my defence I was 10.

• 
  🔝 Woop 💛 (@Woopmoder) reported 39 minutes ago

  every Thursday (last day off) I witness the same dread pass over me as I once again know that the battlefield (Work) is beckoning me unto its service (the time clock)

• 
  Blank paper Ⓥ (@BlankpaperV) reported 46 minutes ago

  @pinkfilesss @nayana317668 @NawItsMaestro Lmao you won’t even view the ones on the battlefield the same as ice anyway lol so what’s your point the soldiers who fix the plane that bombs children are also culpable obviously the soldiers who provide logistics for the murder are obviously directly culpable

• 
  Seraphah - החתול של אלוהים / Dei Kattus (@YeshuasKat) reported 46 minutes ago

  @realerikjanthes @JamesSurowiecki Sorry, but enough of those LT's were incapable or incompetent in actual battlefield performance that it became a cautionary tale. And those got their men killed. It mirrors the problem of 'bad cops'. Education and training are important, but it's not education, or even 'training' that makes a cop 'good' or 'bad'—it's character and competence. It's something that cannot be gained in the classroom unless it's rooted in the heart and soul. It starts in the heart. You can know all the theories, mechanics and physics that make an automobile operate, but if you can't change a tire, you're doomed to getting stranded eventually. Point being that all the 'education' in the world will not produce a good leader, without other qualities education does not provide—and cannot replicate. Merit and competence is far more important.

• 
  Punishing Birb (@Proselyte_Folc) reported 46 minutes ago

  @TitiPanos @ShitpostRock2 I know why they did it, but they had other options if they wanted to reset him. They got lazy. Also you didnt address the major problem, why then attack the gods on Olympus? Why not fight alongside the titans on that battlefield while having the power that he has now?

• 
  Bryan Schulz (@ChumThumb) reported 51 minutes ago

  @glennbeck The problem is Glenn we CANNOT beat them on the battlefield. We do not have the troops, we have no way of delivering them or equipment there, and no way of effectively resupplying them. Air campaigns do not win wars, especially when the other side has ballistic missiles.

• 
  Matthew Bromwell (@Quicksilvergoat) reported 52 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Can you not fix REDSEC so I don’t get blinded? It’s been broken for weeks. This is @CallofDuty level nonsense.

• 
  U.S.A.I. 🇺🇸 (@researchUSAI) reported 60 minutes ago

  🇮🇷 The First Order Consequence: Iran’s Supreme Leader, after saying an enemy had been defeated on the battlefield, warned that attempts to undermine public resolve or spark pessimism would “directly aid the enemy,” signaling a push for tighter domestic information control and messaging to reduce frustration-driven unrest 🇮🇷 The Second Order Consequence: Iranian state-aligned authorities and media outlets would likely intensify monitoring and restrictions on dissenting commentary, while opposition figures and citizen networks could face higher risk of retaliation, contributing to reduced open debate but potentially faster alignment around official narratives, reflected in measurable trends such as fewer public protest announcements and fewer viral accounts documenting shortages or security incidents 🇮🇷 Discernment: Past instances of government crackdowns on criticism following battlefield or security milestones would likely be treated as evidence that fear and uncertainty suppress mobilization, shaping future strategy toward preempting pessimism rather than responding after public sentiment turns 🇮🇷 Reasoning: The Supreme Leader’s framing suggests a current focus on sustaining morale through state messaging, which may produce short-term stability measurable by lower reported street confrontations and fewer coordinated online calls to action, while also increasing long-term decay risks such as public distrust if official accounts diverge from daily conditions like inflation or service disruptions 🇮🇷 Judgement: The warning aims to preserve collective cohesion by discouraging frustration, but the approach risks trading openness for stability; group growth would be supported if public communication improves and grievances are addressed, while group decay would be supported by evidence like sustained reductions in credible, verifiable information and persistent reports of harassment that discourage participation in civic problem-solving