Battlefield 6 Outage Map

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

Battlefield 6 Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  CalvZynisT (@CalvZynisT) reported 19 seconds ago

  @Battlefield helicopters in redsec should NOT be able to be driven like bulldozers on the ground and run people over. And on top of that you can’t lock on to the helicopters when they’re low. Please fix. Plenty of games ruined by no audio helicopters showing up out of nowhere and running us over. It should blow up if it hits the ground moving fast. Like what are we doing ?

• 
  nolawhereelsetogo (@angrynolasports) reported 2 minutes ago

  @freakofxeets Why fix what isnt broke? Madden. NBA. COD. Battlefield. Fallout. The money makers haven’t changed either. People Want pick up and play.

• 
  TitanToc (@Silverback766) reported 8 minutes ago

  The U.S. Army isn’t lagging because soldiers have forgotten how to fight. It is lagging because the institution is adapting too slowly to a battlefield that has changed extraordinarily quickly.

• 
  Onile Olona. (@alpontif) reported 9 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.

• 
  J 💎 (@Amonmrk) reported 9 minutes ago

  @ZuzuMUFC Yeah this is why I gave up with COD. Didnt get the licence issues you had but the amount of updates are just absolutely ridiculous I bought Battlefield instead last year and didnt miss COD at all

• 
  Bootstrap Bill (@WillDaBeast_69) reported 11 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm Fix the ******* black screen bug. Fix the ******* grenades. Fix the ******* new sniper being a total meme gun. Thx

• 
  PaulsCorner-VerseQuest (@TNTJohn1717) reported 17 minutes ago

  keeps a special apostolic strategy from becoming a universal command used by stingy churches to starve faithful labourers. Why, then, did Paul decline Corinthian support? First Corinthians 9:12 gives one reason: “we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.” Second Corinthians 11:12 adds another: Paul intended to “cut off occasion from them which desire occasion.” False apostles were watching for anything they could twist against him. Paul therefore removed financial suspicion from the battlefield. He would rather sacrifice his right than let greedy counterfeits turn his liberty into ammunition. That is mature Christianity. The flesh asks only, “Am I entitled to this?” Grace asks, “What will exercising this right do to the testimony?” Paul understood that a legitimate liberty can sometimes be surrendered for a greater spiritual purpose. Christian liberty is not the freedom to insist upon yourself; it is the freedom to lay something down when Christ’s interest requires it. The strongest proof that a man possesses a right is sometimes his willingness not to use it. Paul’s refusal to burden Corinth also separates shepherding from exploitation. Second Corinthians 11:20 had exposed false leaders who could “devour you” and “take of you.” Paul operates in the opposite direction. He does not approach Corinth wondering how much value can be extracted from them. His next phrase tells us exactly what he wants, and it is not their wallet. “for I seek not yours, but you:” This is the heart of the verse: “for I seek not yours, but you.” Few sentences expose false ministry more quickly. Paul distinguishes between what people possess and the people themselves. He is not primarily seeking Corinth’s money, resources, influence, labour, property, or usefulness to his own reputation. He wants the Corinthians spiritually. He seeks their restoration, growth, obedience, doctrinal stability, purity, and usefulness to Christ. That does not mean material giving has no spiritual place. Philippians supported Paul, and he received their generosity gratefully. Yet even there Paul wrote in Philippians 4:17, “Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account.” Paul could receive the gift while caring more about the giver’s spiritual fruit than the money entering his hands. That is the difference between ministry and merchandising. A hireling sees souls attached to resources; a shepherd sees resources as tools for helping souls. The phrase also confronts modern religious celebrity culture. A ministry can begin using people without ever asking directly for money. Followers can become numbers proving influence. Testimonies can become advertising material. Volunteers can become unpaid machinery feeding a brand. Congregations can become audiences whose chief function is making the leader feel important. Paul says, “I seek not yours, but you.” He wants people brought under Christ, not people brought under Paul as personal property. This principle is especially important because Paul had genuine authority. If anybody could have exploited apostolic status, Paul could have done it convincingly. Yet he refuses to convert authority into ownership. First Corinthians 3:5 asks, “Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed?” Ministers are servants, not masters of the saints. Christ purchased the church with His blood; no preacher gets to behave as though the flock came with his name on the title deed. There is also a salvation-and-service distinction here. Paul is not seeking Corinth so he can become their saviour. Christ alone saves. Paul had already written in 1 Corinthians 3:6, “I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.” His pastoral desire concerns their spiritual welfare after the gospel has reached them. A faithful minister can care intensely about souls without confusing that care with the saving work only Christ can accomplish.

• 
  Orlando Victor (@OrlandoVictor54) reported 19 minutes ago

  @lavitx Whatever side of the debate we’re on, I think the important part is to stay curious, look at reliable evidence, question assumptions, and avoid turning environmental issues into another ideological battlefield. 🌍 We all have an interest in leaving a healthier planet behind us.

• 
  FanatikGaming (@FanatikGaming1) reported 21 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

• 
  yes i know, no i yes, yes no yes (@tulsidaskhan170) reported 22 minutes ago

  @CeraGibson Saw some **** tweeting here about how they used to play the battlefield (a war game btw) as a kid without any thoughts and how growing up and going back to the game made them realise its “problems” which was basically people getting shot in a WAR game.

• 
  Hugo Navarro (@HugoNavarroPer2) reported 27 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.

• 
  Erick Ybarra (@ErickYbarra3) reported 27 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, 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. Lastly, if you read my books, I do give the reader more than enough primary sources. Test me. Just go through my pictures on Facebook or X and tell me you aren't getting an education in Patristic theology.

• 
  ＧＨＯＳＴ (@Adam9110) reported 28 minutes ago

  @GhostGamingG @Battlefield All they need to do is disable access to the aircraft carrier until the M-COMs become available to capture, just like it was in BF4, and the problem would be solved. But will DICE actually do it??? I don’t think so, because that studio is severely developmentally challenged😒

• 
  Kapt'n Krunch 🛠️⚓ (@KaptainKrunch97) reported 29 minutes ago

  I have my issues with the update as all Battlefield 6 updates go, many of them are issues they SHOULD'VE playtested and fixed before launching with them - but the great has outweighed the bad for me with this update, flying with @KnuteAutomata as my WSO has been some of the best Battlefield 6 moments I've had since beta/release. Please put the two-seater jets in more maps for all that is holy to us pilot mains.

• 
  John (@DownHomeJohn) reported 30 minutes ago

  @Battlefield @BattlefieldComm Still need to fix the kill tally towards Ace rewards.