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 (38%)
• Sign in (33%)
• Matchmaking (13%)
• Glitches (9%)
• Game Crash (7%)

Live Outage Map

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

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Rennes	Game Crash	11 hours ago
Nantes	Glitches	4 days ago
Lyon	Matchmaking	5 days ago
Montignac	Glitches	6 days ago
Paris	Matchmaking	8 days ago
Méry-sur-Oise	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:

• 
  Tomas Pflanzer (@gizmax) reported 2 minutes ago

  @Mark0Stunners @BattlefieldComm This is tragic. The recoil is fine, the weapons were like lasers, but the RPGs have been nerfed? Mines that don’t work on vehicles? An SMG that’s almost like a sniper rifle? A 1-on-1 close-quarters battle between an SMG and an LMG, and the LMG wins? Malfunctioning servers that crash after every match? Mines that glow on the ground? I really don’t understand the direction you’re taking this game in. Having players glow in the upcoming patch will be the end of the game for me, too. The game had so much potential, but you can’t even fix that ******* broken main menu UI. @DRUNKKZ3

• 
  ✨ (@in_gyden) reported 3 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."

• 
  0xAu (@0xAud) reported 6 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm It was simple. Remove bots and bring back proper servers with browser. Fix game breaking bugs on time.

• 
  Isenfyre☭⃠ (@Isenfyre_) reported 6 minutes ago

  @TheIdeaManFL @BattlefieldComm You just load in, and if you dont get the glitch you back out over and over until you do get it. Its pretty common.

• 
  Julian Winters (@JulianWinters9) reported 8 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm @Battlefield The battle pass is not working I am not completing the battle pass the tokens is not working

• 
  ***** Indy 🟥🟧🟨 (@cobracommanduhr) reported 9 minutes ago

  It cannot become more clear that @PalantirTech needs to be designated as a global terror corp and dissolved for global public safety sake 2 broad day light assassinations of Americans were orchestrated by the Palantir platform which exploits privacy and civil liberties of 🇺🇸 citizens leading up to ending human lives Second issue is active part in flawed targeting systems that are proven to be useless in the battlefield [I am an independent Wall Street analyst]

• 
  Orange_Vol1321 (@OrangeVol1321) reported 11 minutes ago

  @Aussiegamerhd2 @Battlefield If you're refusing to play because of "skins" we don't need you in the game. There's 200 bugs or problems with the gameplay/graphics and most of it has been there since release. It's a FPS, you can't even see your skin. Lmfao

• 
  Tom Jones (@WokeEqualsBroke) reported 14 minutes ago

  @Cali_King687 I disagree! As a combat veteran myself women do play an important role in our military so long as they pass physical fitness same as a man, I have no issue w/ it! Front line combat role tho?? FUUUUUUCCCK NO!! I don’t need to be worried about a women on a battlefield.

• 
  Kevin Flegel (@TherealKevscout) reported 18 minutes ago

  @ConInsurgent Apparently you do. So I am convinced you never served if you do not know what Conflicts were between 81 and 92 or think 10 years of service means on the battlefield entire 10 years. Its okay. You don't appreciate 47 years of Iran at War with us. Got it. I have a different view of IRAN and the 47 yrs this has led to. Only live one here is you thinking IRAN is new and no boots on the ground to invade is a WAR.

• 
  Ibracadabra87 (@MartinsDaniel09) reported 22 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm DICE releases the game with a matchmaking system that they themselves know is broken, leaving their audience stuck with it for several months. This shows a great lack of respect for the consumer who remained in the game.

• 
  Dawn Martello (@DawnMartel5224) reported 27 minutes ago

  WSJ 6-3-2026 paper edition has a story, about the U.S. Military, which has NOT been vetted with the Pentagon. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll has apparently acted alone, and pressed two different categories of strategic defense contractors, to share top-secret IP with each other, and consequently, with anyone else and everyone else, on the planet. We are told that the U.S. has faulty radar alert and defense capabilities, because the Alerts, for incoming drones and missiles -- don’t “talk-to” -- the Interceptors, used to shoot them down. The WSJ depicts a completely haphazard military which is operationally incapable of detecting and shooting down threats. This is PREPOSTEROUS, on its face. But, according to the WSJ, Dan Driscoll believes this is for real, and he has just implemented the fix. By requiring defense contractors to share top secret and propriety IP technology with other defense contractors, dozens of systems are coalesced into a single Google maps screen, where the troops on the ground, can get “total visibility” of the battle space. And so, can ANY user. As of Friday, we are told, more than 74 different systems have been connected to a software interface called Lattice, which gives a Google map-like picture of the battlefield. Driscoll is a proponent of “open” systems. As in WIDE open. This seems to me, to be a MAJOR breach of our Defense security posture, inter-alia, by rogue agent Driscoll, who insists this should have happened a “long time ago” because “this was never a technology problem, this was always a bureaucracy and business model problem.” Uh huh. Is this guy for real? Google maps? Google maps can’t find inter-state highways, on their “maps” software. To suggest that the U.S. military defense apparatus has been non-existent, and that Google maps is the answer, is pretty much Treason, straight-up.

• 
  Hieb (@HiebDE) reported 32 minutes ago

  @TheTopMostDog @JimmyMack0320 @Battlefield Yeah the trees are an issue but realistically the physics engine has so many variables to compute to generate an outcome and changing them a little bit generates a massively different outcome. Every BF has that problem its unavoidable. Try crashing helis on bf6 into each other

• 
  Robbie Blair (@TheRobbieBlair) reported 33 minutes ago

  @Tea_Manuel @BattlefieldComm Crossplay to OFF by default and only allow console crossplay would solve many issues. we might even be able to have a match of Battle Royale without running into m&k cheaters. With crossplay off, you can't even get a match but it runs like **** with it on.

• 
  Swaguley (@swaguley) reported 33 minutes ago

  Saying that players who don't like certain movement mechanics in Battlefield because they're just "bad at the game" is a non-sequitur. I agree, the movement isn't difficult, and killing players slide-jumping isn't either. That's not the issue. The real problem is this. - It changes the pace of combat and alters the feeling of gunfights to where they become less readable, and more annoying to play fundamentally; and more importantly: - It shifts the tone of Battlefield from the "grounded in authenticity" mantra Battlefield had, which players have come to expect from it in the market, to something much arcadier I'm happy to support more movement options as long as they fit an authenticity and believability line, but it seems even asking THAT is too much for some reason. We praise vehicle design when they move naturalistically, why is infantry combat an exception? The heart of the argument here is about Battlefield's tone, which affects how the gameplay is designed, not because some players can't "get good". You don't get players complaining about emergent movement mechanics in Rocket League, even from trash cans, because they expect it from the game's tone, Battlefield players do not. And no, citing bugs like BF3's aim stabilization jump, BF4's various movement exploits, etc. as prooftexts to justify any and all future crackhead movement mechanics in Battlefield, doesn't work either. Should we also then bring back Battlepacks just because they were in BF4 too? I get there are those of you that don't care about Battlefield's tone, therefore there is no "movement line" to cross, but you're ignoring massive swaths of players that DO care and will just straight up not play the game as a result, as you often recommend them to do. A vast amount of players come to Battlefield to play a combined arms military shooter with the "appearance of realism without being a simulator" gameplay loop that Battlefield UNIQUELY offered as a middle ground in the market, but EA and DICE have abandoned that middle ground to trend chase other games. This is why it's annoying and there's so much complaining about things like movement and skins. You can continue to attack the caricature of a 0.5 KD player crouch walking to bolster your position, but you still can't define a well-reasoned upper limit for movement mechanics because you DON'T have a standard. An appeal to the skill gap is not a standard, and it does not define an upper limit for movement whatsoever. What then would be keeping DICE from adding wall running, double jumps, or even phasing through walls if it can be argued those could potentially take a vague amount of skill to perform? The bounds are defined by Battlefield's supposed authentic tone, which has been erased in favoring of emulating other games. If you just enjoy Battlefield's metamorphosis into a movement slop shooter like every other FPS out there, that's fine. We can disagree. Just don't expect the franchise to be anything more than a cheap, more plasticky Call of Duty substitute going forward.

• 
  Amliko (@coaisimA) reported 34 minutes ago

  @ahmedmahmoudu5 @Battlefield Means your internet sucks dude. Not a game issue.

• 
  𝕲𝖗𝖎𝖒𝖒𝕵𝖔𝖜 𝕵𝖆𝖊𝖌𝖊𝖗𝖏𝖆𝖖𝖚𝖊𝖟 (@SEXTAESPXDA) reported 37 minutes ago

  A crash heard as it seemed the attack worked, but all that remained was nothing among the battlefield, as if the arrancar was no where to be seen. As if he didn’t exist But above? The Arrancar was already floating, his spiritual pressure cloaking him in a more calm +

• 
  Stunlokked (@stunlokked) reported 39 minutes ago

  @Xamuelj32 @BattlPULSE I don't know what the problem is. "2nd assault" seasons with iconic maps from BF3/BF4 should be a no-brainer. BF3 second assualt: operation metro caspain border noshar canals seine crossing BF4 second assault: operaetion lockers zavod 311 seige of shanghai hainan resort also why not throw in a BFBC2 map ? is map making really that hard in the newest engine ? @Battlefield

• 
  AVA (@A__A__G__) reported 40 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Always releasing new content on a Tuesday is crazy, if yall are scared of any technical issues, launch the new content on a Thursday or Friday and take those extra days to work

• 
  Rodrigo Buzetti (@RodBuzetti) reported 43 minutes ago

  @Battlefield I got one: Why do you guys dont fix the RedSec downtown lighting bugs.

• 
  TWTicktockevil (@ticktockevil) reported 43 minutes ago

  @BillMelugin_ I did not volunteer to serve because I have both flat feet and scoliosis. If the draft were reinstated, I would have to find alternative service because they couldn't use me. I would be a liability on the battlefield because I would injure myself too easily. Same thing with trans

• 
  Iam Thee (she/it) (@RainbowNailGal) reported 44 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm Bf 2042 is a forewarning of what "live service" is. Release a half *** game, you build "with the community" then after it's perfect, abandon it for the next title and don't support past titles whatsoever. At this point give me a new season in 2042 I'm over BF6

• 
  Rodrigo Buzetti (@RodBuzetti) reported 44 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm This is the last Battlefield i ever play, we got so much better stuff with Hell Let Loose, Squad, Tarkov and now infantry coming to War Thunder. Fix the bugs and then talk about new maps and updates nobody asked for as a priority.

• 
  Chap Dee (@Afrotechonomist) reported 44 minutes ago

  @MannyintheCuse @DanielLDavis1 The will of the Ukrainians was broken long ago, that's why they are being snatched off the streets. The battlefield is awash with mercenaries, free flowing European tax money & NATO weapons. Ukraine is fighting against her will, & when the war dies down, she will be alone

• 
  nannu Pawlu (@NPawlu) reported 45 minutes ago

  @IfindRetards Later assessed "Not fit for battlefield service" and all assigned to cushy desk jobs that can for the most part be done by civilians, while drawing expensive medical support for their "condition': deducted from even more expensive battlefield equipment and support requirements

• 
  JABM (@BarrileroMunoz) reported 46 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Fix the brigness error....

• 
  Matthew Bromwell (@Quicksilvergoat) reported 48 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.

• 
  Pseudo (@pseudoshiro) reported 52 minutes ago

  @EveryDamnDay__ They should fix the ratio on UNL. Too many legendary and Battlefield 🥲

• 
  before i slip,, ima slide♟️📜 (@Rocinantemoons) reported 56 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Are fixing Middle East ping issues?

• 
  JMa (@JJMaTrader) reported 57 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 ********...

• 
  mindflexor (@mindflexor) reported 57 minutes ago

  @ICARUS_AIM there is a disconnect in battlefield. part of the player base thinks it wants to be a milsim the other just wants it to be cod but with combined arms. Something like mw 2019.