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 (36%)
• Online Play (33%)
• Glitches (13%)
• Game Crash (9%)
• Matchmaking (8%)
• Hacking / Cheating (0%)

Live Outage Map

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

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Nantes	Online Play	1 day ago
Bitche	Game Crash	3 days ago
Paris	Game Crash	5 days ago
Aurillac	Glitches	5 days ago
Annecy	Online Play	6 days ago
Paris	Online Play	6 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:

• 
  Chukker National (@ChukkerNational) reported 34 seconds ago

  @PennMaxxing Duke of Wellington had the same idea, but the problem was that it takes extensive training and practice to manage a bow powerful enough to be useful on a battlefield.

• 
  ADIANKAIBANYY (@ADIANKAIBA22) reported 49 seconds ago

  @Baldnewsnetwork Because none of you are for the future did you know which you didn’t obviously but did you know that it cost Sony $780M to make and ship physical games to retailers and they save all that money we can actually get new IPs new games new stories to experience instead of Call of dukie bullshit for the 500th time or battlefield or Fortnite or any live service games that’s gettting $100M to $500M to make

• 
  Alex (@Animemaster51) reported 3 minutes ago

  You know what’s funny Delisting is a problem for everyone because future gens don’t get to buy a great game like NFS Most Wanted 05’ or Deadpool or Transformers Devastation or even the original San Andreas much less Battlefield Bad Company 2 or Spider-Man Shattered Dimensions.

• 
  REVENGE (@revsprotwit) reported 6 minutes ago

  @ThelVanDamne Removing health packs, dual wielding, vehicle boarding, equipment did alter halo. Also, the BR doesn't have hit scan. It's just really fast projectile. In fact, the projectiles of the BR are actually slower in halo 3. Further proving you don't know jack **** about what you're trying to seem like an expert on. All of the things you listed were carefully considered and tested before being greenlit to be added to the game. most of the things you mentioned don't really alter the player that much other than improve gameplay flow, which halo 5 abilities do not as we'll get to in a bit. Vehicle boarding is a natural evolution of the combined arms combat halo is known for. it gives people not on vehicles another tool to defend themselves against vehicles, especially when paired with the emp of the plasma pistol, or EMP ball. Removing Health packs (while I don't agree with it) was necessary for multiplayer. Regenning health ensured that once you finished a fight and had time to recover, you entered new engagements on equal footing with other players. Allowing you to be more aggressive. Removing fall damage allowed for greater organic verticality, and improves gameplay flow. Fall damage was a hinderance to map design, and player movement that halted the game. Halo is a game that relies on good consistent flow, and 30 seconds of fun philosophy. If fall damage stayed it would objectively hurt gameplay flow and map design. Equipment affects the battlefield directly. It creates area denial, support for team mates, and cover from enemy fire. It emphasizes the team work aspect of halo's multiplayer. at the same time though, the equipment was never one sided. A skilled player could turn equipment you brought into the field against you, and even use it to their benefit. Dual wielding is an extension of the weapon sandbox. It gives weaker single handed weapons additional utility. While I think the implementation and execution was not the best, it provided another layer to combat that gave you pause to consider using single handed weapons over two handed weapons. All of these changes organically evolved halo's combat loop. Which I even said I wasn't against. Spartan abilities on the other hand: >Sprint even though it makes you run faster, is still disruptive to the gameplay loop, because it forces you to put your gun into low ready while sprinting. Then have to bring it back up when exiting sprint, disrupting halo's gameplay flow. Along with the other aforementioned gameplay implications. >Ground pound locks you into an animation that you have zero control over, and on impact you have to wait for an animation to play before you can regain control of your character. Same for spartan charge. Again, disruptive to gameplay flow. The only "spartan ability" I have no problem with is clamber, because that's less of an "ability", and more of a quality of life improvement that still punishes you for bad jumps.

• 
  bigby (@EsdHhb) reported 9 minutes ago

  @EndersFPS The problem isn’t the large factor it is the variety that matters i dont care if the maps are large or small they need to be great But battlefield 6 has already more than enough of small to medium maps so yes big maps in this exact context actually matter

• 
  VatsRohit (@KesariDhwaj) reported 10 minutes ago

  @DivyaHarikris Because the systems have been pushed post-haste into Ukraine, there have been issues with the UKR crew handling of the Western Systems. Plus, European systems come with their own logistical tail and requirement with respect to maintainance SOPs. Something which the Ukrainians are not always able to replicate for obvious reasons. Third, many European systems were pulled from storage/minimal usage and pushed into the battlefield w/o testing them first check their battle readiness.

• 
  GAU (@deaidua) reported 10 minutes ago

  @ButtjerFreimann @drlorenzmeier @Farmerberater While I agree with you that so far I haven't encountered any actually battlefield swarm deployments and this capability is right now mostly PR, one also has to consider that companies have to start somewhere. Test, trial and error now so it can be used in a real-world scenario tomorrow (meaning in months or years).

• 
  Alex (@BradykinRB) reported 10 minutes ago

  @itbShane If she could target base, I might agree. But even in her best case scenario, the battlefield only restriction is a major issue, and pulls away from the most successful style this deck has found which is spawncamping at base.

• 
  Gabriel Garcia (@gabrielalej) reported 13 minutes ago

  Cities Skylines 2, Battlefield 6, Broken Arrow,Open Front.

• 
  Grouse Beater (@Grouse_Beater) reported 19 minutes ago

  Datacentre planning proposals are facing all kinds of hurdles, including suspicion and an antipathy here in Scotland, pushed back from securing energy supply to sky high construction costs. One example: the 2,000 acre Prince William Digital Gateway site in the US state of Virginia had another problem: its proximity to a Civil War battlefield. Questions asked are: why should the taxpayer pay for data centres because the big electronic companies want AI to develop their services? Who asked for more services? Where is the public clamour for greater costs and lost land? “If the development is allowed to proceed, the solemn nature of this historic site would become marred by sitting in the shadow of the monstrous datacentres, along with their associated electrical infrastructure,” said one legal brief against the plans. The US Gateway project is now in doubt after a local court ruling halted the project and a key backer pulled out. It is one of hundreds of large-scale datacentre projects around the world that are in various states of development, from chancier attempts at riding the AI boom to the more committed projects that have the support of tech behemoths like Microsoft. But while models produced by cutting-edge AI companies like OpenAI, Anthropic and Google are improving rapidly, the central nervous systems behind their technology – datacentres – are being built at a much slower pace. The Uptime Institute, which inspects and rates datacentres, has identified 250 global datacentre projects exceeding 100MW in energy demand – equivalent to around 300,000 homes – that have been announced between 2021 and 2024. It said approximately half of those projects will either not happen, or their completion will be delayed. Even if the cancellations and delays came to fruition, there will still be an “unprecedented and rapid” increase in the power required over the next five years, according to Uptime. Mega-projects cancelled last year include Project Range in the US state of Arizona and the Cyberjaya campus in Malaysia. The Prince William Gateway is also on the cancelled list. This backlog poses problems for AI firms that need data centres to train and operate their models. Google admits its cloud business – which uses datacentres to provide AI services like chatbots to companies and users – is “compute-constrained”, as demand for ever more powerful AI models and services increases. But who needs chat bots? Why do we feel the need to talk to a computer? It is clear the big companies are shifting their costly ambitions onto the shoulders of the public. Photo - Horst Friedrichs: Didcot data centre.

• 
  Fabian Gaustad Wirtz/OpTic Fumpii (@LFCFabianFumpii) reported 21 minutes ago

  I know why always lagging and having wierd movement on Battlefield 6, i must turn off overlay. Overlay makes me lagging and having wierd keyboard movement.

• 
  Cracked Nostalgia Antiques (@BuddyLeeGhost) reported 28 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm Its been over a month since Strikepoint was “broken”. Any update at all? Last update was 2-3 weeks ago. 😬

• 
  Lohith (@SwolePixel) reported 29 minutes ago

  @BlackPanthaaYT Noooooo, wait really! get your pitchforks ready lads. Bruh, in pursuit of live service games these bozos are axing iconic franchises. They need a PlayStation level treatment now, criterion a battlefield studio my ***. They have and always will be an arcade racer studio.. period

• 
  Brandon Parks (@Brandon73563391) reported 33 minutes ago

  @Battlefield ******* pathetic *** penny pinching clowns. Run some American servers at 6 am central not all European 200 ping lag trash

• 
  Skynet 🫍 (@skynetBF) reported 33 minutes ago

  @jaylay12088001 @swaguley Because its not a battlefield no more . Now they are competiting with cod . Cod has no issue like hit reg or TTK , if they dont go back to what battlefield should be they will fall . Hell let loose , wardogs etc . We dont want a game that please fortnite players

• 
  SiPPY (@SiPPYtv) reported 36 minutes ago

  I’m going to put an 3 hour long video together of all the hitreg/netcode issues Ive experienced with Battlefield 6 and send it to @JakeSucky…and then pay him a million dollars (in Monopoly money) so he can expose how awful Dice is. Skill based hitreg needs to GO

• 
  ♰ OLISeraph_VT👁️🪽 ♰ (@OLISeraphVTuber) reported 36 minutes ago

  @rowell_96 @Battlefield Sounds like an issue related to skill

• 
  JBanga23 (@JbangaBrown) reported 40 minutes ago

  @EA_DICE @Battlefield i wanna apologize for my few rants I get it now the lightbulb has clicked and im having fun please fix matchmaking though its terrible.

• 
  Swaguley (@swaguley) reported 41 minutes ago

  EA fumbled their biggest opportunity to steal players from COD and retain them with BF6. Allow me to explain. When BO7 was first announced, I believe many classic COD fans were frustrated with Activision and chose BF6 because they wanted an arcade military shooter that: 1) Looked like an actual military game (no goofy skins) and 2) Had normal, boots on the ground movement Both of which are things modern COD largely abandoned chasing Fortnite and other games. Skins and movement are also hot topics in the COD community. These disgruntled COD players saw the announcements for BF6 and thought that Battlefield, a franchise historically known for being authentic, would at least adhere to its identity since Call of Duty would not. On first glance, the marketing seemed to bear this out. The backlash to BO7's announcement was the tipping point where COD players as a whole were finally open to giving Battlefield a serious look. BF6's marketing and beta then gave them the impression that it was going to be EXACTLY what they were looking for and expecting: a grounded, arcade military shooter that looked the part without the crackhead movement. That's why skins and clips of crackhead movement are the two things that blow up more than anything else with BF6. These were the two most important features to get right, funnily enough. Battlefield fans and classic COD fans actually converged in these areas, as they really wanted the same thing. EA then made jabs at Call of Duty: "No Nicki Minaj skins" and blew up Zac Efron to drive the point home. Battlefield was in a prime position to capitalize and finally steal the market from Call of Duty. However, once everyone bought BF6 and played it for a little while, they began to realize what it actually was: A cheap, more plasticky feeling copy of modern Call of Duty, just with GI Joe vs Cobra skins and its own version of crackhead movement. I think it's fair to say that both COD and Battlefield players alike felt rug pulled. Little did we know that while poking fun at Call of Duty with one hand, EA was literally copying COD's failing homework with the other. It seems that EA believed fundamentally that COD players just wanted a 1:1 copy of what "modern" Call of Duty was (they didn't) and told Battlefield Studios to make exactly that, with yearly releases planned in the future. They didn't understand the fundamental reasons why COD players were disgruntled with modern COD in the first place and why the franchise was going downhill. Battlefield 6 was not an attempt to be a classic Battlefield game. It was designed to be the "perfect COD substitute". To avoid backlash from Battlefield players by being upfront about this fact, they did everything in their power to evoke BF3/BF4 nostalgia instead of letting everyone know they were actually trying to build MW19/MWII just on the back of 2042's garbage version of Frostbite. The kicker here is, I think most COD players actually DID want Battlefield to simply be Battlefield, and they expected exactly that, just like your average Battlefield fan. Back in the day, these players may have dabbled with BF3, BF4, or BF1 and were now finally open to giving the Battlefield franchise a real chance because COD had repeatedly abused their loyalty over the years. It's actually quite interesting to see COD fans being completely spot on about what Battlefield's identity is or should be, even when some Battlefield players forget. Shortly after BF6 released, these COD players quickly became wise to what was actually going on, and put the game down when they realized that BF6 was not trying to be Battlefield, they were just trying to be what modern COD had become, even down to things like the menus and the overpriced store; the funny part is they couldn't even do it any better than Activision. These COD players didn't want Battlefield to just be a copy of modern COD, but EA didn't get this. When 2042 crashed and burned, EA just said screw it and applied a blanket approach to their copying because they didn't actually understand what COD players wanted, so they thought by copying everything they could, maybe something would stick. They even placed COD developers in charge to make sure of this. EA could've been the good guy here and used this opportunity to be the antithesis to what modern Call of Duty had become, but instead they misunderstood the assignment and just became little bro bad guy. It only took 18 days for them to bring in the stupid looking skins to their poorly designed customization system and boosted slide jumps became the meta. This is why BF6 ultimately had such a steep player drop off a month after release and why those hundreds of thousands of players won't come back no matter what updates come. Once the positive first impression was dashed by the reality of what BF6 was, these COD players didn't have a problem dropping the game and not looking back. Meanwhile, we Battlefield fans are now stuck with a Battlefield game that is really just a cheap copy of Call of Duty with some Battlefield lipstick applied and Battlefield Studios is having to go back and slowly put the toothpaste back in the tube to please the Battlefield players that are masochistic enough to stick around. Tiny changes to the gameplay aren't enough to change the overall flavor of the game, they need to drastically change it. Even after all the updates, it still tastes the same way it did at release. But the damage is already done, these COD players aren't coming back and EA has simultaneously pushed away a ton of Battlefield players in the process. It seems we did hold onto a few of the COD players, judging by the amount of people that instantly skip their revive when downed. You might say, "Well BF6 was best selling Battlefield of all time" and while that is true, because of the reasons I've stated above, Battlefield 7 will NOT come close to the sales of BF6 because COD players are now wise to what EA is doing and so are many Battlefield players. I question if I would even buy BF7 if they take the same approach again. I will certainly be looking at BF7 much more critically than I did BF6. EA's metrics for live service games rely heavily on daily active users and monthly cosmetic spend. That was the real goal and why they wanted all of those COD players. With the immediate player drop off, there's a high likelihood they missed their lofty internal revenue goals with skin sales, which is probably why Battlefield Studios saw a couple rounds of layoffs. Funnily enough, EA may also have inadvertently revived the COD franchise because the hype cycle BF6 produced scared Activision into making real changes that players were asking for, and now Activision actually listens to feedback from the COD community. So COD fans may now be eating good with MW4 and won't need Battlefield anymore and we Battlefield fans are stuck with Codfield 6, maybe even for a couple more years based on the announcements from today. Will EA learn from this? Probably not. I'm not confident the new leadership coming here in a couple of months will be any better, especially since they have $20B in debt to make up for when they bought EA. If EA had marketed Battlefield 6 as what it really was, I don't think I would've purchased it. You might disagree with my opinions here, but I think they are borne out. Here are a couple of community polls I conducted over the past several months on my YouTube channel:

• 
  asmarino ደጀና💪🇪🇷 (@azmarinoss) reported 41 minutes ago

  @mjoe0989 No question 100%. If this the problem for them why they are silent when they see the pp massive preparation for war? Why d9 you silent for ongoing war in amhara, Oromo, and other Ethiopian? Even do you think not preparation for war save Tigrayans if pp create war with Eritrea? Wehere do you think the Battle ground if pp strat war for annex Assab? And what choice you see the Tigrayans ppl at all? question—100%. If this is really their concern, why were they silent while PP was openly preparing for war? Why stay silent about the ongoing wars in Amhara, Oromia, and other parts of Ethiopia? Do they honestly think ignoring military preparations would protect Tigrayans if PP started a war with Eritrea? Where do they think the battlefield would be if PP tried to annex Assab? What realistic choice would ordinary Tigrayans have in that situation?

• 
  GUL (@gulVasikova) reported 45 minutes ago

  $PDYN: Strong Revenue Growth Suggests Defense AI Strategy Is Gaining Traction Palladyne AI delivered a strong preliminary second quarter, with revenue of $5.8 million, beating Wall Street expectations of $4.6 million. Even more impressive, revenue grew 480% year over year and 66% from the previous quarter, showing the company is beginning to convert its technology into real sales. The biggest highlight wasn’t just revenue—it was the backlog. Backlog increased from $17.3 million to $24 million after the company secured about $12.5 million in new contracts during the quarter. Management expects most of this backlog to become revenue over the next 12 to 18 months, giving investors better visibility into future growth. Think of backlog like a construction company with signed contracts. The work hasn’t been completed yet, but the future revenue is already committed. As long as projects are delivered successfully, today’s backlog becomes tomorrow’s sales. Another positive is the balance sheet. Cash remained stable at around $44 million, meaning the company continues growing without significantly reducing its cash reserves. For an early-stage defense technology company, maintaining liquidity while expanding revenue is an encouraging sign. The long-term opportunity is even bigger than these quarterly numbers. Palladyne is building an AI-powered autonomy platform for military drones, autonomous vehicles, robotics, and multi-domain defense systems. As governments increasingly invest in AI, autonomous warfare, drone swarms, and intelligent battlefield software, demand for these technologies could continue growing for years. Think about how modern warfare is changing. Instead of relying only on soldiers and traditional equipment, militaries increasingly want autonomous drones that can coordinate with each other, AI software that analyzes battlefield data in real time, and autonomous systems that continue operating even when communications are disrupted. That’s the problem Palladyne is trying to solve. The company is still not profitable, so execution remains the biggest risk. Investors will want to see revenue continue growing, backlog convert into cash, and operating losses narrow over time. Bottom line: This quarter suggests Palladyne is moving beyond being just an AI story. Growing revenue, expanding backlog, and stable cash indicate customers are increasingly adopting its defense AI platform. If management continues winning contracts and successfully converts backlog into revenue, the company could become an emerging player in the rapidly growing defense autonomy market.

• 
  Zachary Davidson (@Ryangofett_2490) reported 46 minutes ago

  Battlefield will die if it becomes an annual release title Battlefield 6 has been out almost 1 year now and it still has major problems. How does EA expect Battlefield 7 to be a polished game if Battlefield 8 releases a year after it?

• 
  medoyid_ua (@LetsArmUKR) reported 53 minutes ago

  The Moscow Exchange just crashed below 2200 for the first time in three years. Another day, another reminder that sanctions and Ukrainian strikes actually bite. Kremlin mouthpieces will blame "the West" while their economy hemorrhages from lost oil revenue and burning refineries. This isnt weakness, its the predictable math of a petrostate bleeding men and money it cant replace. Every ruble lost here funds fewer missiles, fewer drones, fewer dead Ukrainians tomorrow. Keep the pressure on. No magical deals will fix this for them. Only battlefield defeat does.

• 
  Some Dude (@jaylay12088001) reported 54 minutes ago

  @skynetBF @swaguley Battlefield has never been a game that maintains a very high player count. Every single title had this player drop. Even then, the player count of BF6 remains higher than previous titles. The "bot issue" is due to the terrible matchmaking system. We need a server browser.

• 
  Jamin Thompson (@jaminthompson) reported 55 minutes ago

  Step 1 to defeating an army of gun-mounted robot dogs is to figure out what type of battlefield system they are. A reasonable person can assume that they're basically just mobile sensor-shooter nodes trying to drag a rifle through an adversarial physics problem. From there, we can use first principles to deduce that we have a lot of defensive advantages at our disposal that we can use to defeat such an enemy. The rookie mistake to avoid in the battle plan, however, is thinking the best countermeasure is more firepower or a straight-line escape. That's how you end up playing the robot's game, where every advantage goes to the hardware. Robot hardware has the clear advantage in a head-to-head duel, which is exactly why we don't make it one. So instead of using bozo tactics, we'll use our brains and target the robot's main weakness, its decision stack. This gives us the greatest tactical advantage. Instead of mindless pewpew blasting, we need to attack the robot's perception, state estimation, path planning, balance control, target classification, and weapons release. All the seams between those layers are where the robot is most vulnerable. So our first course of action is to make motion expensive. We want to fight on our terms, in an environment with terrain that is technically passable but tactically poisonous. And we'll prepare our defenses by making the battlefield very hostile to a machine. We want to make life as miserable as possible for the metal mind. So instead of thinking "oh no, we're fighting robot dogs with guns," we adjust the paradigm to "we're fighting balance algorithms that are dragging rifles through bad physics." The goal is to outsmart the bots and prevent them from having a clean path to go anywhere. So we'll make every path into the defended space feel like pure chaos, filled with elements that make a robot's control loop work harder: thick mud, rocks, gravel, sand, cables, uneven debris, weird curbs, surfaces with weird angles, ditches, tight turns, narrow gaps, and low baffles. We don't need to make every single obstacle perfect. We just need every step the robot takes to cost more terrain estimation, friction prediction, gait replanning, torque correction, stabilization, and battery drain. This is how we win. Next we will further terraform the defensive position so robot walking and shooting become separate problems that need solving. The robot might move forward, but movement isn't the same thing as being able to fight. So we'll craft the environment to funnel the bot swarm into very tight slow lanes where the "safe" path turns into a traffic jam. If they stop, they lose tempo. If they advance, they burn energy. If they shoot, they waste ammo. If they reroute, they lose time. If they trust the obvious path, they walk deeper into our trap. The goal here isn't to fully prevent the robots from crossing the terrain, because the probability of zero robots getting across is low. Our goal is to create as many slips, sensor conflicts, torque spikes, bad decisions, and battery losses we can force per meter as possible. Next, we'll **** up the robot's perception by changing what it actually sees. We'll fill the defensive space with glare, floodlights, smoke, mist, hard shadows, reflective panels, hanging tarps, moving junk, and a shitstorm of visual clutter so the robot cameras can't build a trustworthy picture of what's in front of them. Then we'll ruin their thermals. We'll mix in some hot junk, cold panels, warm decoys, and human-shaped heat ghosts so the robot can't tell what's human and what's fake bait. We want them to waste time and battery at every step. So we'll make their LiDAR miserable too. We'll hang up reflective sheets, angled panels, mesh, fog, and a bunch of repeating patterns everywhere so the robot will hallucinate edges, misread distance, and see fake things everywhere. We'll build confusing hallways that look similar but lead to different places so slam keeps matching the wrong landmarks. We'll also add moving decoys, swinging tarps, rolling carts, fans, flags, and mad max style mechanical motion devices so the scene never stays the same. We'll also **** up their gps and comms so the bots can't rely on the swarm map to bail them out. We want every single sensor to tell a different lie. Next, we want to minimize our probability of getting killed, so we'll need to make the robot gun matter less. Walking through the environment will be one problem for the bots to solve. Getting a clean, stable, confident shot will be a completely different problem for them. And we need to make it as hard as possible. A rifle on legs may sound scary, but it still has to do the boring stuff right. It has to stay balanced, point straight, see clearly, and know what it's shooting at. So we'll enhance our anti-clanker fortress with low baffles, offset walls, blind corners, staggered barriers, partial cover, false corridors, and a **** ton of blocked angles. The bots might still advance, but the rifle won't be able to get a clean lane. We'll also put up decoys and weird/ambiguous shapes in the firing lanes so every shot has to pass target id. The goal is to force the robot to choose between moving, aiming, identifying, and not shooting the wrong thing. Those are separate problems. If we make those requirements interfere with each other, the robot may still be able to move, but it can't confidently shoot, and it doesn't have unlimited ammo to waste. There are mathematical limits to ammo capacity, and the math here is in our favor. So the basic plan is to play to our strengths. We don't attack the robot's armor; we attack its confidence. If it advances, it enters a funnel. If it hesitates, it burns battery. If it shoots, it wastes ammo. If it phones home, operators get overloaded. If it trusts autonomy, it walks deeper into an environment designed to poison its autonomy. At the end of the day, though, the robot is just the visible endpoint. The real enemy is the machine behind the machine (algorithms, batteries, sensors, ammo, relays, maps, operators, etc.). You don't beat this type of enemy by building a bigger gun or dueling it 1 on 1. You beat it by forcing the kill chain to collapse and by making the battlefield itself eat the stack. You make the swarm slow down, split up, get confused, run in circles, lose confidence in the map, lose confidence in the target, lose clean firing lanes, burn battery, waste ammo, and enter an adversarial operating environment that takes their movement, vision, comms, and certainty away. The idea is to make the robot spend more compute, energy, ammo, and confidence per meter than you spend building/defending that meter. If you do it right, there probably won't be some glorious cinematic sci-fi battle. Just a pile of expensive machines trapped, confused, low on battery, unable to shoot, waiting to be recovered by their master.

• 
  Brandon Tseng (@brandontseng2) reported 56 minutes ago

  There's nothing like V-BAT and Hivemind. Jammed GPS, jammed comms is the standard on the battlefield; it is the hardest problem to solve and largely remains unsolved by so many despite the rhetoric and claims. We operate everyday on the battlefield in jammed conditions. I couldn't be more proud of @shieldaitech engineering and operations teams.

• 
  TarIQ (@TQ_110) reported 57 minutes ago

  @pedruchie @BattlefieldComm Yeah we all have this problem on Xbox and unfortunately no one talks about it

• 
  Saboteira🇮🇱🇧🇷 יהודה הנשיא, (@Beatsboysabota) reported 57 minutes ago

  @EA_DICE Fast, honest support when things break Less aggressive monetization, more focus on long-term fun Instead we got a game that launched strong but spent the next 9 months prioritizing quick fixes, image control, and monetization over actually fixing what drives the core audience away. EA and DICE — the message is simple: The players who are still here are the ones who love this franchise the most. When we stop playing, it’s not because we’re impatient or entitled. It’s because the game stopped delivering on its promises and stopped respecting the people who bought it. We’re almost 9 months post-launch and we’re still talking about broken movement and recurring bugs. That’s not normal. That’s a priority problem. If the people in charge don’t change direction right now — fix movement properly, stabilize netcode, deliver real content without shoving the Battle Pass in everyone’s face, and actually listen — whatever player base is left will disappear for good. And no amount of marketing for the “next Battlefield” will bring everyone back.

• 
  Sann (@san_x_m) reported 58 minutes ago

  His name was Major Shaitan Singh. He was told to abandon his post. He was outnumbered, out of range of his own guns, and no help was coming. He was ordered to fall back. He refused. He was born on 1 December 1924 in Jodhpur, into a family of soldiers. By 1962 he was a major in the 13 Kumaon, commanding a company of 120 men, most of them Ahir farmers from Haryana who had followed him to the roof of the world. Their post was called Rezang La. A pass in Ladakh at nearly 16,000 feet, guarding the road to Chushul. Behind it lay Leh. If Rezang La fell, Ladakh lay open. There was one cruel problem. A ridge stood between his company and the Indian artillery. It meant that if the Chinese came, his 120 men would fight without a single supporting gun. They knew it. They dug their trenches into the frozen rock anyway. On the freezing dawn of 18 November 1962, the Chinese came. Not in dozens. In waves. Hundreds at a time, wave after wave, up the ravines below the pass. Shaitan Singh's men cut them down and kept cutting them down. When one post was overrun, he moved to the next, and the next, walking through machine gun fire to hold his men together. He was hit. He kept going. He was hit again. By the time the guns fell silent, almost all of his company was gone. 114 of the 120 were dead. But they had made the enemy pay in blood for every foot of that ridge. The snow closed over the battlefield. For three months no one could reach it. When the thaw came and the recovery teams finally climbed to Rezang La, they found the men of Charlie Company still in their trenches. Frozen. Weapons still in their hands. The mortar man with a bomb still in his grip. They had died exactly where they had been told to stand. Shaitan Singh was found on that ridge, beside his men. He was given the Param Vir Chakra, the highest honour India has. He was told to fall back. He chose the mountain.

• 
  big_markyt (@big_markyt) reported 59 minutes ago

  @tboe012 @EA_DICE I've deleted it twice since release, considering doing it a third time and leaving it alone as it's not enjoyable. I agree on gunplay too, some of the lads I played with yesterday were struggling with lag issues, too, going as high as 400 ping