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.

• Sign in (43%)
• Online Play (28%)
• Glitches (14%)
• Game Crash (8%)
• Matchmaking (6%)
• Hacking / Cheating (0%)

Live Outage Map

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

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Saint-Malo	Online Play	15 hours ago
Buenos Aires	Sign in	2 days ago
Comuna 1	Online Play	2 days ago
Perpignan	Sign in	3 days ago
Domingos Martins	Sign in	5 days ago
Courbevoie	Online Play	5 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:

• 
  Miad Maleki (@miadmaleki) reported 3 minutes ago

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

• 
  Rob Lee (@RALee85) reported 6 minutes ago

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

• 
  enricoo42sant (@YbBarcaynadamas) reported 6 minutes ago

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

• 
  NewsTongue (@NewsTongueX) reported 8 minutes ago

  🔴 White Kreschet Battalion strikes Ukrainian military communications nodes White Kreschet Battalion claimed strikes on antenna and communications equipment of Ukraine's Armed Forces. The unit framed the targeting of communication nodes as degrading enemy command-and-control speed: through these systems Ukraine receives and transmits intelligence, targeting data, and battlefield situational information. The claim states longer communication disruptions delay Ukrainian responses and increase errors in decision-making.

• 
  CumminsNV5600 (@cat345rjwc97015) reported 9 minutes ago

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

• 
  Bmurphy (@Bmur3333) reported 11 minutes ago

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

• 
  Pepe Silvia (@DevRev0) reported 15 minutes ago

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

• 
  Brazi 🇧🇷🇮🇹 (@Brazi_real) reported 17 minutes ago

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

• 
  Erick Ybarra (@ErickYbarra3) reported 18 minutes ago

  "{Sigh}. Ybarra and his secondary sources....We should just read primary sources." Every now and then, someone comes along and says this kind of thing. But just as with every extreme, we can appreciate much of the direction until it proves inadequate. This is easily proven if we take the extreme, "We should only read secondary sources." Most people will scoff at this idea. And rightly so. If all we did was read secondary sources, we would be deprived of the very source material we are talking about, and we would face a drought of uncertainty about the original, such that eventually all the secondary literature would lose its value altogether since there would not be a way to verify accurate reflections of the sources. But it is also the case for those who wish to pride themselves on their exclusive desire for primary sources. If all we emphasized were primary sources, we could fall prey to a myriad of problems. The first is compounding the uncertainty of the previous extreme (i.e., relying only on secondary sources) by getting into the spiral of the manuscript transmission debate itself, and for a variety of texts prior to the printing press. Invariably, the textual skeptic won't be satisfied until he can ascertain whether there are good grounds to accept a certain text as authentic or highly reliable given the historical circumstances. But guess what? You'll need to read extra-primary sources in order to get your bearings turning on that question, and thereby will have to build a small library with scholarly commentary. Secondly, when enough reading of the primary sources has been done, and we still find a wide variety of interpretations of the primary data, what use is there is just continually reading the primary sources? Well, for many intelligent readers, there is great use in doing this. I wouldn't deny that for a second. However, as Christian scholarship has proven, we still yield a multiplicity of contrary interpretations to the primary source data. Which..... eventually makes you have to actually talk about the primary source data with other people, and then, if you transcribed this onto paper, turns into secondary source literature. Now, it is old news that @AllanRuhl is a tremendously gifted historian and rigorously intent on making sure that we keep our fingers on the text of the primary sources. Recently, he published a Substack where he recommends his top 10 books on the papacy. And guess what? He recommends primary sources. And not only that, but it was purposefully done to contrast with my recent video recommending my top 10 books on the Papacy, which has many secondary sources. We know this because he brought me up in his article to show how, despite my being credited with some skill, my method is weakened, so it would seem the implication is, by a reliance on secondary source material. Allan has implied this in the past. Here's what I would say in defense of Ruhl and myself at the same time. When I was an Anglican reading the primary sources, I quickly became, as stated above, aware of the vast interpretive gulf between various persons, historians, exegetes, theologians, scholars, and traditions all ON THE SAME source data. I myself was one to rely on primary sources. And then it turned out that the primary sources alone don't always help you in every single historical debate, though that would have been nice! Fast forward - When, as a Catholic, I ventured to write books on the issues most crucial to my own journey, (1) the theological divide between Catholic and Protestants on the Priesthood (Melchizedek, et. al.) and (2) the fork between Byzantium and Rome, I knew that I couldn't just copy and paste primary sources. After spending many years reading the literature, just in the English (!), I learned that so many scholars from the 1700s had already been doing that kind of thing. "Here we have Primacy-sourceA weighing in at 200 pages in the right corner, traveling from Oxford {.....} and in the left corner is Primary-sourceB weighing in at 800 pages hailing from Tubingen University {.....}" So on and so forth. Debates on the Papacy, the Filioque, the Sacraments, etc. etc., needed to graduate from the well appreciated method of Florilegia, or as it is sometimes pejoratively referred, "Quote mining." By 2010, there had been countless books translated from the original Latin, Greek, and even Syriac. Orthodox scholars have had their own quote-mines as well. So my book on the Papacy could not just be another gear in the system. This is why the first 100 pages of my book on the Papacy, a book Allan has never read, is devoted to manuscript theory, transmission analysis, historical methodology, understanding the justification of sources, what counts as authentic evidence, what is the standard for which historian counts versus those who do not count, the various epistemological paradigms between Orthodox and Catholics that have a significant role in the reading of the source material, and finally an entire chapter on the science of theological development and how that plays into the East-West debate. Moreover, when one is building a case for a certain historical interpretation on a subject from a certain time period, it helps to amass the scholarship and the weight of consensus, particularly on the interpretation of primary sources wherein significant divergence is had. I'll give you one example. The scholarship on Pope St. Leo the Great. While the primary source material is clear enough, it doesn't have as much weight with Orthodox readers who are disposed to fight against that clarity, and so compiling 20 or 30 non-Catholic historians who comment on the Leonine theory of the Papacy would help to further disarm some of the fight that an Orthodox reader might have while reading my book. It might be to Allan's disappointment that I included so many historians and scholars, but after 5 years, the readership has only confirmed that the survey of scholarship helps. So yes, let's read the primary sources. But there is a great danger (even more than I've described) if we simply read primary sources. And we know this because of the historiographical, interpretational, and exegetical battlefield that is going on between rigorous traditions that all claim to be rooted in the very same history. And lastly, as I've already said, if Allan wanted to be strict enough about sticking to only primary sources, then he and I shouldn't say a single word again, since no one needs us.

• 
  🌑🕷️RiskE80🕷️🌑 (@RiskE80_) reported 21 minutes ago

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

• 
  Onile Olona. (@alpontif) reported 29 minutes ago

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

• 
  Yellow fruit (@EmersonAck74431) reported 29 minutes ago

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

• 
  FanatikGaming (@FanatikGaming1) reported 30 minutes ago

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

• 
  Psycho Fella (@Psycho_Fella) reported 31 minutes ago

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

• 
  Tyler (@Tylergzilla) reported 31 minutes ago

  @Battlefield FIX THE FLARE BUG PLEASE MAN

• 
  DaanktreezXVIII (@DaanktreezXviii) reported 32 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm AND ITS RANKED PLAY I CANT FOCUS WITH BACKGROUND NOISE FROM PLAYSTATION MICS! And it’s like nobody wants to LISTEN TO YOUR FAMILY PROBLEMS IN RANKED PLAY BUT I CANT MUTE PLAYSTATION ANYMORE AFTER CARRIER STRIKE UPDATE

• 
  PlayerXYouTube (@IamplayerXYT) reported 33 minutes ago

  @Am_a_L0ver The problem wasn't even Tac sprint, its the overall speed😑 Tac Sprint is there since WZ1..and it was successful! TAC sprint is what made CALL OF DUTY feel different from other shooters, now they removed it, now whats the difference between Battlefield and WZ movement?

• 
  Jamie Wynder (@Mr_Pebb) reported 33 minutes ago

  @Flakfire WARDOGS. To me it feels like the FPS that will become my primary FPS after BF6 has drained me mentally. The Battlefield Franchise will always have a place in my heart. Problem is BF6 just doesn’t feel like a proper Battlefield. Things would have been better if EA and DICE weren’t trying to entice players from a certain franchise. They have always wanted to nab a good portion of a playerbase from a rival for over a decade. And while maps it was nice to see them introduce larger maps along with doing some tweaks. The whole meat grinder element, silly sweet spot and no flinching mechanic for snipers sucked so much joy out of the game. Plus don’t get me started on auto spotting through scopes and being able to tie hold breath or range finder to fire button. Lastly will I still pop my head into BF6 after WARDOGS enters early access. Since some of my Battlefield chums will be waiting for WARDOGS to come out on Xbox before getting it. BF6 will pinch me for a couple of games. But overall. WATCHDOGS is will eat up a larger portion of my gaming time.

• 
  HELLKATMAVRICK (@HELLKATMAVRICK) reported 34 minutes ago

  @darnellquiggly @GrimmHollywood the reason behind the pc wait is for those on console an more to enjoy the experience before the modders take over the video platforms with all new mods an more to change up the story an things in the game. it always been a console exclusive thing since the start. why change that up. the physical media getting rid of is only a SONY AN PLAYSTATION ISSUE thery alrteady taking movies off your ps5 on sept 1st that are made by sony entertainment movie company. be lucky it wasnt just put on on sony's consle's like it used to be... that where that exclusive things comes into play. the price is also worth it your getting a game that about over 200gbs an it only costing you 80 for standard an 100 for the ultimate edition. that a damn hell of a deal. other games out there charge over 150 to 200 dollars for a ultimate edition an give very lil in that package. call of duty is very well known for this. idk how people waste money on a game that just a repolished **** that really will never go places like battlefield an other games.

• 
  EcstasyDesignz (@EcstasyDegen) reported 35 minutes ago

  @Coachie01 I knew someone was going to question Ivar. His intelligence is more strategic than the others. Put them in a battlefield situation rather than a heist or prison, and suddenly Ivar becomes a very serious problem.

• 
  Bill (@strokeyourself) reported 40 minutes ago

  @MeikoTesla I’m done with the lesser of two evils. Crash the system and let’s just sort things out on the battlefield.

• 
  Big Brain AI (@realBigBrainAI) reported 40 minutes ago

  Palantir co-founder and CEO Alex Karp on why almost every company buying AI is getting nothing back for it: Karp's diagnosis is short and unkind: "The classic Silicon Valley way up until recently was just buy some large language model and have a nice chat with it, and that really doesn't create any actual enterprise value." That's the whole failure mode. A model gets procured, a chat window appears, nobody's revenue changes. His alternative starts with a definition he says Palantir arrived at years before the rest of the market: "We were years ahead for lots of reasons of anticipating what operational AI would mean. Meaning AI where you make more money or your revenue goes up and your costs go down." Two lines on the P&L. Nothing else counts. Karp claims the numbers follow from that. "We have a thriving commercial business. It grew 71% last quarter. And we're at a very pretty significant scale." He also flags something rarer in the sector: "We make money on our money, which is unusual in software. People have growth but no profitability. We have a lot of both." So why does the same underlying technology produce nothing at most companies and revenue at his? Karp says the answer is "a little more technical," and it isn't the model: "Our platforms are built to use large language models and machine learning in a way that is actually operationally effective. We had a relatively privileged insight into how you would do that and built this thing called an ontology which manages large language models in a way where they become crazily useful both commercially and actually on the battlefield." The ontology is the missing layer. A model on its own doesn't know what your business is made of. Something has to translate between the two before the model can touch anything that matters. What it gets used for is deliberately unglamorous. Karp lists underwriting, acquisition of real estate at scale, construction at scale, and supply chain management — "anywhere where you have volatility." He picks out one problem specifically: "Understanding the true cost of inputs into your enterprise, which is super hard to do at scale, especially if things are shifting or there's disruptions." And the larger version of the job: "reimagining your business into a digital as opposed to a non-digital business." Then he moves from the technology to the thing he actually treats as the differentiator — who carries the risk that none of it works: "Our claim to fame really is we absorb the risk of creating value." He contrasts that with how enterprise software is normally sold, in language he flags as the vulgar version: "The way you're taught to build a software company is your customer thinks they're getting laid but they're getting effed." Palantir's internal reframing: "We used to internally say no, we're in the mutual pleasuring business. Both sides should be happy." In practice that means the vendor is on the hook for the outcome, not just the licence: "We absorb the risk of value creation. So like you will make more money, your enterprise will work better. That's been a bonanza and we're pretty much alone in doing that in the world." Karp doesn't claim it's all his own execution. He credits the moment too: "The truth is we're also riding the back of the fact that this is just an American revolution." Underneath the specifics, he also frames the commercial work as secondary to something else. Asked what matters most, his first answer isn't revenue at all: "The most important thing we've done for you is help establish dominance on the battlefield with the DoD and stop hundreds of terror attacks."

• 
  Reira (@reira_r2) reported 43 minutes ago

  @Battlefield fix the 3rd person jet camera, revert it or give us the option at least to use the originall jet camera.

• 
  Hugo Navarro (@HugoNavarroPer2) reported 44 minutes ago

  I tested the most promising counter-drone solution on the market. I flew to Prague, picked up a rifle for the first time in my life, and hit 4 out of 5 moving ground targets at 70-100m. The company behind it is publicly listed with no coverage and could be a multibagger if they execute. Smart Shooter ( $SMSH ) makes a 740 gram computerised rifle sight that turns a standard rifle into an anti-drone weapon. The soldier points roughly at the target, holds the trigger, and the sight tracks, computes and releases the round at the microsecond the barrel is on target. FPV drones costing a few hundred dollars now account for the majority of casualties on the modern battlefield. Soldiers are using shotguns to defend themselves. They add weight, only work at 40-50 metres, and give you a couple seconds of reaction time. It's a terrible solution. Combat-proven with the Israeli army. Every branch of the US military has bought it in the last 14 months through sole-source emergency orders. The US has effectively said there is no substitute. After a soft Q2 the stock sits at $330m market cap, $83m net cash, no debt. EV of $247m. Not cheap on this year's numbers but 5-12x 2028 EBIT depending on adoption, against peers at 18-20x. A slipped order held Q2 revenue growth to 30% when it would have been closer to 88% with that order included. Early stage product bet with real risk, but a real product solving the most urgent problem in modern warfare, a clean balance sheet, and limited coverage creating a window before this gets widely known. Full deep dive on Undervalued and Undercovered.

• 
  Deeky (@the_realdeeky) reported 45 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Best thing yall can do is fix the menu organization bc it’s a ******* mess.

• 
  NPI-AMERICA (@Dr_Autistic_3D) reported 51 minutes ago

  @InfinityWard Listening? You keep saying you’re listening to the community, but your actions are telling a very different story. Day 1 of the MW4 beta had the TTK that made the game feel like CALL OF DUTY. Fast, aggressive, rewarding and skill-based. There were legitimate issues that needed fixing: graphics, visibility, spawns, weapon balance, aim assist, servers and movement. Fine. FIX THOSE. But instead, you chose to keep slowing down the gunfights. Your own patch notes explicitly say the changes were intended to “increase the minimum TTK.” That means players now have to land more bullets and spend more time shooting someone before getting a kill. And the results are already visible. MW4’s Steam beta peak reached roughly 115,000 concurrent players, then dropped by more than half. Steam reviews have also been heavily critical, with TTK repeatedly appearing among the complaints. (TweakTown) That’s not proof that TTK caused every player to leave. But it IS proof that the game is generating serious dissatisfaction, and TTK is one of the issues players are repeatedly talking about. There are even community threads specifically calling out the TTK and asking the developers to stop nerfing lethality. (Reddit) So here’s the question: WHO ARE YOU LISTENING TO? Because it sure doesn’t feel like you’re listening to the players who loved the Day 1 gunplay. If someone needs an extra fraction of a second every gunfight just to have time to react, that’s not necessarily “balance.” Sometimes it’s simply lowering the punishment for slower reactions. COD has always rewarded reaction time, accuracy, positioning and aggression. Stop trying to turn MW4 into a slow bullet-sponge shooter. I didn’t buy the Vault Edition to play a watered-down Battlefield. Bring back the Day 1 TTK. Fix the actual problems. Let skill matter. @InfinityWard @CallofDuty

• 
  GammaFlowSPY (@GammaFlowSPY) reported 54 minutes ago

  $SPY IS AT THE LINE. 766.86. Not 760. Not 770. 766.60 is the level that matters. SPY has just pushed back above the Gamma Flip after spending the session underneath it. That changes the setup but it does not confirm a regime change yet. Why? Dealer GEX is still deeply negative. So the market is sitting on a fault line: Below 766.60 - downside moves can accelerate. Above 766.60 - the first test is whether price can actually hold. Today’s range: 763.93 - 767.35 That tells you where the fight is happening. And there is another problem: 0DTE represents ~40%+ of GEX. That is a loaded intraday structure. When that much gamma expires today, levels can look bulletproof until they suddenly aren’t. $770 is the next obvious ceiling. $765–766 is the battlefield. $760 remains the downside level that matters if sellers regain control. The mistake here is calling a $0.26 move above the flip a new trend. It isn’t. The market needs to prove it can hold above the line. Until then: 766.60 isn’t a prediction. It’s the test. Watch the reaction - not the narrative. - Gamma Flow Educational only. Not financial advice.

• 
  Legendary K9 (@MbwaLegend) reported 56 minutes ago

  @SyloveO Sometimes the problem isn’t what we’re saying, but how we’re communicating. Changing the format can change the entire conversation. Listen to understand, not to win. A good conversation should build a bridge, not another battlefield.

• 
  Ben Clark (@ben_clark55) reported 58 minutes ago

  @TheManLandTCG i’ve been playing the deck and i’m having some trouble figuring out the battlefield order, what were you doing with them?

• 
  Xela the Brotaku (@XelatheBrotaku) reported 58 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.