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:

• 
  chris (@ChrisSlaske) reported 5 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm Reddit, discord and labs are the reasons for battlefield 6 being a mess now. The most toxic gamers frequent those first two and battlefield is making knee-jerk reaction updates ignoring core issues

• 
  Jim (@JP_Money_95630) reported 5 minutes ago

  $NVDA -$39M in Calls Coming Out - Air Coming Out of the Balloon for now. +10M in PUTS This can lead to MUTED Price Action on 8/26. $195 is a Sweet Entry IMO into January. What changed since 8/21? Interestingly, IV actually increased into earnings. 8/21: 7-day IV ≈ 55.95% 8/24: 7-day IV ≈ 57.37% So the market is charging a little more for the earnings event even though $NVDA just dropped −2.91% today. The implied percentage move has moved only slightly, roughly 6.0% → 6.1%, but because NVDA fell from ~$215.80 to $208.48, the implied dollar move is now closer to ±$12.70. The technical setup makes those levels VERY interesting $NVDA 8 EMA: $216.17 21 EMA: $214.58 50 DMA: $207.94 100 DMA: $206.97 200 DMA: $195.34 That creates a pretty clean earnings map: Bullish ER → ~$221 Reclaims 8/21 EMA Puts $NVDA back above the broken short-term trend Then $225–230 becomes the next major battle Bearish ER → ~$195.75 Breaks 50 DMA Breaks 100 DMA And almost perfectly lands on the 200 DMA at $195.34 That coincidence is the part I would highlight. $NVDA EARNINGS ROADMAP $221–222 = market-priced bullish move $214–216 = reclaim zone $207–208 = 50/100 DMA battlefield NOW $195–196 = market-priced bearish move + 200 DMA So essentially, the options market is pricing NVDA's downside earnings scenario almost directly into its 200-day moving average.

• 
  Momentum Works (@momentumasia) reported 7 minutes ago

  @deepseek_ai uses Mao's playbook to win the AI race. Fewer chips, less capital — and a strategy built for the weaker side. For the last few years, we have often recommended that clients trying to understand their Chinese competitors read Mao Zedong's On Protracted War. In fact, many of the Chinese tech leaders we know have been reading Mao's works for strategic and tactical inspiration in a permanently cutthroat market. Liang Wenfeng, the founder of DeepSeek, appears to be doing the same. In a recent investor call, he talked about restraint, about not fighting for ground he does not need, about how being behind is actually an advantage. He never mentioned Mao once in the four-hour call. But anyone who has read Mao would recognise the strategy. Mao's strategic thinking came from a side that was poorer, smaller and surrounded. In the early 1930s the Communist insurgency forces were weaker than the Nationalist government on every axis a conventional army is measured on — men, weapons, industrial base, control of the cities. Earlier attempts to follow more orthodox, Soviet-influenced doctrine had ended disastrously, culminating in the loss of the Communist base areas and the Long March. The strategy Mao built afterwards began from a different question: not how to get as much force as the enemy, but how to change the terms of the fight so that being weaker mattered less. On Protracted War, written in 1938 - a year into the war against Japan, took the next step and folded time itself into the fight. Mao's answer was not to wait until he had as many men, guns or cities as his enemy. It was to fight in a way that made those advantages less decisive. That history matters here because Mao’s strategy was shaped by the same basic problem DeepSeek faces today: how to compete when the other side has far more resources. That is a fairly precise description of the box DeepSeek is in. It runs on a small fraction of a single American lab's compute, with less capital, no access to the best chips, and — on Liang's own account — models roughly an order of magnitude smaller than the largest ones he is looking at. So when he reasons his way through that position out loud, he arrives roughly where Mao arrived. This is the lens for the whole call. DeepSeek is not trying to run the American AI playbook with fewer resources. It has either consciously adopted, or independently reconstructed, a coherent strategy for fighting from the weaker side — and anyone who has read Mao will recognise its four basic moves. Refuse the stronger side's battle Liang points to the largest models, around 800 billion parameters. DeepSeek cannot train one. He knows it, and says he will not even try. On his own maths, it takes roughly four Huawei chips to do the work of one Nvidia chip, and the Huawei hardware itself is about two years behind. So rather than spend years trying to assemble the same firepower as the American labs, he simply refuses that battlefield. He made the same choice when DeepSeek went viral last year. Users poured in. For a brief moment, it looked like DeepSeek had been handed the opening every Chinese internet company spends years chasing: traffic, attention, and a chance to build a consumer platform. The obvious move was to spend heavily, keep the users and turn the moment into a super-app. Liang did not take it. There were bigger things to build, and he believed the users were not going anywhere. That is the first move in the weak-side playbook: do not fight the stronger side on the ground where it is strongest. Choose another ground. Concentrate the force you have This is Mao's 集中优势兵力，各个歼灭敌人 — concentrate a superior force and destroy the enemy piece by piece. The point was never that Mao had the superior army. In 1946, at the start of the renewed Chinese civil war, the Communist forces were weaker overall. Mao's instruction was to make that irrelevant at the point of contact: when the enemy advanced on several fronts, concentrate three, four, even six times his strength against one unit, destroy it, then move on to the next. The same logic would later reappear in Korea, where Chinese forces remained materially inferior overall but repeatedly tried to create local superiority at the points they chose to attack. DeepSeek is doing something very similar with compute. It does not have a superior force; it has a fraction of one. So Liang narrows the front. Everything off the direct path to AGI is cut — video generation, world models, the finance and medical agents everyone else is racing to build. The coding agent stays because it feeds back into DeepSeek’s own research; the rest can wait. That is what “concentrating superior force” means when you are weaker overall. You cannot be strong across the whole field, so you make yourself as strong as possible at the one point that matters. With a fraction of the compute, you do not get the whole product roadmap. You choose the one front you can win. Use time to change the balance In 1938, this was the heart of Mao's argument in On Protracted War. Japanese forces were far stronger and could keep taking Chinese cities. But every city they took also meant more territory to occupy, longer supply lines to protect and more troops tied down far from home. China, meanwhile, did not need to become stronger overnight. It needed to avoid being destroyed, preserve its forces and keep building them. If the war lasted long enough, the balance that looked hopeless at the beginning would not remain the same. Liang talks about being behind in much the same way. DeepSeek is roughly two years behind on hardware and, by his reckoning, works with about 5% of the compute. His answer is not to close all of that tomorrow. It is to turn two years into six months, then three — while still using only a fraction of the compute. That is why he says being behind has an advantage: it gives you time. Every extra month is another month in which the gap can narrow without DeepSeek first having to match the Americans chip for chip. The stronger side has the lead today; the weaker side's job is to make sure today's balance is not tomorrow's. Start from your own conditions Asked what DeepSeek models itself on — one of the US labs, perhaps — Liang says there is nothing to copy. He works from the other end: he starts with the chips he actually has, asks how large a model they can train and what that model can prove, and lets the rest wait. He does not start from the frontier model and work backwards to the compute he wishes he had. It is not that Chinese firms refuse to copy Americans. If your resources are not the leader's resources, copying the leader's strategy is not prudence. It is a mistake. Want less Then Liang says something harder to place neatly inside Mao’s playbook. DeepSeek could charge much more for its API. By Liang’s own calculation, the market could bear a hundredfold return on the hardware cost. He is satisfied with roughly six. He could keep the best model closed. Instead, DeepSeek open-sources it and helps others deploy it. He could build more of the applications downstream himself. He would rather leave much of that business to partners. Why leave so much on the table? Liang’s answer is unusually blunt: the one who wants more will be beaten by the one who wants less. He then takes the logic to its extreme. A company determined to capture 5% of the market will lose to one satisfied with 1%. And that company, in turn, can be beaten by one content with 0.1%. The one thing he will not give up is the team. It is what the raise is really for — enough options to hold the senior people in place, so that whatever setbacks come, nobody leaves. The mistake is to read DeepSeek as an American frontier lab with fewer chips. It is not running the same playbook on less fuel. Its playbook starts from the fact that it has less. Mao's strategic writing asked the same question: what does the weaker side do when it cannot match the stronger side in men, weapons or money? Whether Liang borrowed the answers or reconstructed them from the constraints in front of him is almost beside the point. The strategy is recognisable. The dangerous assumption, for the stronger side, is that the weaker side wants to fight the same war.

• 
  CJSeedge (@CJSeedge) reported 11 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm I don't understand why Carrier Strike doesn't have you think you're always playing Nato. Atm if I win as Pax I get a cutscene of Rooster and Bob being sad, or if I lose as Pax they celebrate my team losing. Seems like an easy fix.

• 
  Igor (@Silva_costa_07) reported 14 minutes ago

  @charlieINTEL They removed SBMM and now don't know how to bring it back; Battlefield 6 pulled it off easily, without any trouble.

• 
  Fourzero (@FourzeroBF) reported 15 minutes ago

  @DANNYonPC The aim assist is crazy, don't beat yourself up lol this franchise is fake af made for people to think they can play shooters - a participation trophy franchise. Garbage small maps that feel like Shipment at every corner, as well as absurdly fast TTK so that anyone can kill you for free by looking in the general direction - no tracking needed. Footsteps can be heard from 3 streets away, but if the guy uses Ninja (a must pick), you can't even hear him when he's sprinting and sliding 2 meters next to you. What's the point of audio when you can't rely on it since some people will be running the perk and others aren't? Imagine having a perk that makes audio inconsistent / unreliable / completely pointless. When you think about it, it does make sense. Little timmy can flank you for free and get his easy kill. As far as I'm concerned, you basically have to think of the game as not having footsteps audio at all. Farmed them hard and in 4 matches it put me in the highest SBMM hell imaginable and never degraded, where it felt like I was fighting copies of me at every corner... very fun. At that point I might as well just log in on OW and play in a T500 lobby with actual teammates that have mechanical skills and shoot things. There are also a lot of cheaters right now, something I never see in Battlefield 6 btw (the one think I like from that game). They don't miss but their mouse movement / positioning is that of a Gold ranked Overwatch player. Sincerely, a top 500 player in every ranked FPS game on the planet (solo Q) - no skill issue involved.

• 
  viehcy 🪅 (@foreeeeeal) reported 18 minutes ago

  Five years. That's how long I've been with someone who loves me, truly loves me, in every way except the one that makes me feel alive. At first, I didn't notice. Weekends' intimacy felt like scraps, but it was enough. He was committed, and I felt safe. But the bed became a battlefield of cleanliness. He’d wipe lubricant off the sheets the moment it got there. My spark faded as the wetness became a problem to be cleaned up. Job stress hit. Our intimacy dropped to zero. Living together meant I saw his exhaustion every night, and I couldn’t bring myself to ask for what I needed. I turned to toys and silence. After too many rejections, I stopped initiating.

• 
  Trollaria (@Trollaria) reported 19 minutes ago

  @rustytatra Even battlefield 6 ai chat bot wouldnt ban for this long. And about performance. For sure it runs smooth on these days pc’s. Back then i often got DirectX error. Had only 3GB vram. If i had no rsi i had maybe played battlefield 1 more.

• 
  Dabutlergames (@dabutlergames) reported 21 minutes ago

  @stroggster I also dislike live service games, and dlc for games like battlefield was more value for money. It's all drip-feed content to get money out of us :(

• 
  MezzWard (@MezzWard) reported 22 minutes ago

  @Battlefield fix your POS game... every ******* week, every ******* update you manage to have your game files constantly getting messed up. When I search, "my PC keeps rebooting when launching Battlefield 6", and it comes up as a well known issue... yall are a joke of a company. Can'twait for @WARDOGS

• 
  MissPeeps (@mizzpeeps1) reported 23 minutes ago

  @SaeChanOshi33 @EdKrassen CBS was ordered to cut a story where Ukraine soldiers were talking about not having what they needed on the battlefield during Biden’s presidency. Also we need to take care of America’s problems before we give out billions of dollars to any other country.

• 
  GodSoldier316 (@G0dSoldier316) reported 25 minutes ago

  @papacharliegame I like it quick, fast, straight to the point, no bloom, mindless gunplay, don’t mind it at all coming battlefield six 1000 hours in game, at least they would hot fix or fix anything if they had issues right away if it was game breaking, really waiting on the new Warzone

• 
  Alfredo Perez (@Fonzieguys) reported 26 minutes ago

  @ApollosMission Battlefield ain't bad , cs2 good besides the massive chester issue

• 
  Veritatem 2021: TRUTH IS NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST (@Veritatem2021) reported 26 minutes ago

  @cathydevine56 But had Cambridge University investigated the issue when it first emerged it would not have become a media battlefield.

• 
  Victini Fan (@xdd1234321) reported 29 minutes ago

  @MomSkyRB I feel RTW is such a good ban that would hurt Kennen no? The main problem I see with Kennen is that he can flow RTW on cooldown so he never needs to commit bodies to a battlefield and can simply move around and perma develop his base while having good point tempo