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:

• 
  JABM (@BarrileroMunoz) reported 10 seconds ago

  @Battlefield Fix the brigness error....

• 
  President Camacho (@kleanyesimklean) reported 35 seconds ago

  @PlayStation I'd be more excited to play Freya or Sigrun whom we saw on the battlefield more. Compounding the issue is the casting. Deborah isnt quite suited for roles like this for me. Looks quite awkward playing a God of War slaying other gods. Someone like Gina Carano wouldve been cool

• 
  Ghost (@Ghost_IOO) reported 4 minutes ago

  one of the most toxic things on CT right now is this growing habit of people trying to burn down entire projects because something didn't go their way. you missed a wl. you didn't qualify for rewards. you didn't get the allocation you wanted. you minted too late. and suddenly the project is a scam? come on. what makes it worse is that some of these are large accounts with audiences who trust them. instead of moving on, they weaponize their influence. they start farming outrage. they start feeding half-truths. they start creating chaos. and thousands of people who don't know the full story jump in and amplify it. that's not accountability. that's not protecting the community. that's ego. if a project genuinely does something wrong, call it out. if there are real issues, discuss them. if founders are acting shady, expose it. that's healthy. what isn't healthy is turning every personal disappointment into a public crusade. not getting what you wanted doesn't automatically make something a scam. sometimes you simply didn't qualify. sometimes someone else got selected. sometimes things just didn't go your way. that's life. the reality is this behavior hurts everyone. it hurts builders. it hurts communities. it hurts newcomers trying to understand what's actually happening. and it makes CT look more like a battlefield of bruised egos than a place where people come together to build. we need less emotional reactions and more maturity. if something doesn't go your way, take the loss, learn from it, and move forward. not every setback needs a mob. not every disappointment needs a hit piece. and not every project deserves to be dragged through the mud because somebody didn't get the outcome they wanted.

• 
  Adrock (@Adrock318) reported 9 minutes ago

  @Battlefield the game is literally unplayable with this TTK. This isn't a milsim. I should not be dying in two frames. This game has been broken since launch and once again I am uninstalling. @tiggr_ @DRUNKKZ3

• 
  Cow007 #🟦☦️ (@cow007) reported 11 minutes ago

  @ArchmagosKiran @HavryshkoMarta Because the other problem with this is there’s no way to win a ground war with an information war. You can’t meme your way out of an inferior structural position on the battlefield. So this reads a lot more like jacking off in front of people for social approval than it does actually doing anything. I know that metaphor reads as a little bit coarse, but how is this any different from what people do on only fans? (other than the fact that it doesn’t generate any revenue.) Has it occurred to you that if you are this emphatic about this position that your time might be better spent on the front lines?

• 
  Slumber Season (@Slumber_Season) reported 12 minutes ago

  @RepLuna 2/ Weaponizing fake outrage to deflect from the actual issue is peak drama. You’re acting like you survived a battlefield when you really just survived a tough CONVERSATION.

• 
  🗽 (@TheGreatDXA) reported 13 minutes ago

  @luv_snakessss_ @Swollentwt Americans didn't lose either by the way, they dominated on the battlefield, they just didn't invade the north that was constantly attacking them, which they could've, and I denounce every war criminal, the problem is you see every soldier as a war criminal bc ur a retarded loser

• 
  Jes (@galexy70) reported 16 minutes ago

  @MAGA_Phyfer @SeanParnellASW @miguelifornia So…if you consider them deficient…you want the US to lose a strategic objective? I don’t understand people who want to use battle as a punishment…when defending your country is an honor. You are a piece of sh!t that clearly hates America almost as much as your parents probably hated you. There are a zillion reasons logistically that trans soldiers are a problem for efficacy on the battlefield. Making you uncomfortable isn’t one.

• 
  Alexander The Greatॐ (@baeckmannisboss) reported 18 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm Would be nice if you guys can fix the under the map / automatic win exploit for redsec

• 
  ✨ (@in_gyden) reported 21 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."

• 
  Embark006 (@embark006) reported 22 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Fix the matchmakingggggg

• 
  xSAHALx (@xSAHALx) reported 25 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Is there any news about server desync and net-code issues ?

• 
  Carzy (@JackofDecks) reported 25 minutes ago

  @HMBohemond The problem is don't bring Soldiers who are not "trained" to deal with Demons to a demon infested battlefield then decide to cleanse them after they do the deed. Because the paradoxal nature of Chaos would mean somehow them being upset the Emperor did not save em from the Inquisition will somehow empower chaos. Also, It's just in poor taste when you got, how many ******* Marine chapter made for this and your own personal Space marines. Which you cant spare for this but to go beat on the Lamenters. Yeah, there is a reason most people find the inquisition to be cringe beside being closest heretics.

• 
  Flamecycle (@flamecycle) reported 26 minutes ago

  @Brick_Suit Exactly. I own a home, so it's just assumed that I'm going to do what needs to be done to upkeep it. I can stay on top of it and make small repairs, or I can neglect it and have to do battlefield maintenance. By the same token, the government already owns this. It's been neglected, so the government just did battlefield maintenance to fix it right.

• 
  PaulsCorner-VerseQuest (@TNTJohn1717) reported 30 minutes ago

  This is exactly why the believer must keep coming back to Paul. Not because Paul is the Saviour, but because Paul is the apostle God used to explain the present dispensation. When Paul signs the letter, he is not asking for religious permission. He is delivering Christ’s doctrine to Christ’s church. That doctrine exposes priestcraft, legalism, sacramental bondage, denominational idolatry, emotional fanaticism, and theological systems that put the believer back under fear. If a man wants to control Christians, he must eventually get them away from Paul or confuse Paul until his words no longer mean what they say. That is why right division is not a minor issue. It is the difference between liberty and bondage, assurance and fear, doctrine and confusion. Chapter Six: Paul’s Letters Are Ammunition for Suffering Churches The Thessalonians were suffering, and Paul sent them doctrine. That fact alone exposes a great weakness in modern Christianity. When saints suffer today, many churches offer entertainment, therapy language, shallow encouragement, emotional music, religious slogans, or vague reminders that “God’s got this.” Paul gives them heavy doctrine. He talks about grace, peace, growing faith, abounding charity, patience, persecution, righteous judgment, recompense, rest, the revelation of Jesus Christ, flaming fire, everlasting destruction, glory, prayer, the man of sin, deception, the restrainer, strong delusion, standing fast, apostolic tradition, disorderly brethren, work, separation, and grace again. That is how an apostle strengthens suffering saints. He does not dim the lights and hand them a marshmallow. He loads the cannon. Doctrine is ammunition because suffering attacks the mind. A persecuted believer starts asking whether God sees. Paul answers: God will recompense. A troubled believer wonders whether rest will ever come. Paul answers: rest comes when the Lord Jesus is revealed. A shaken believer hears false prophecy. Paul answers: remember what I told you; the order has not changed. A church dealing with disorder wonders whether grace means tolerating chaos. Paul answers: withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly. Every pressure point is met with doctrine. That is why a church that despises doctrine will collapse when suffering comes. Entertainment can fill a room, but it cannot stabilize a soul under persecution. Programs can keep people busy, but they cannot answer the mystery of iniquity. Sentiment can make people cry, but it cannot make them stand. Paul’s letters are also ammunition because they give the saint language for the battle. A believer needs words. He needs Scripture. He needs exact doctrine. He needs to know what is happening, why it matters, where he stands, what God promised, what the enemy is doing, and what he is supposed to do next. The devil loves vague Christianity because vague Christianity cannot fight. Paul is not vague. He gives names, categories, commands, distinctions, warnings, comforts, and conclusions. When Paul signs the letter, a suffering church receives more than encouragement. It receives a battlefield manual. Rome can threaten bodies. Religion can threaten reputations. Wicked men can trouble churches. False teachers can shake minds. But one inspired Pauline epistle can put steel back into the spine of a saint.