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:

• 
  Red Robbo 🇺🇸🇪🇺🇪🇸🇷🇺🇨🇳 #NoLabConDuopoly (@Gl3nny5705) reported 20 seconds ago

  @NoelTurner24715 The problem is not who or what survives in a MAD exchange between Nuclear powers We only have the US, UK and France to fear The use of tactical battlefield nuclear artillery and missile warheads is possible in Ukraine to bring a rapid close A truce would be agreed and the war end

• 
  Tweak the Soldier (@PurebloodTweak) reported 2 minutes ago

  Just played the new @CallofDuty and let me tell you.... it ******* sucks. Growing up my dad told me "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" These retards did the opposite. It's slow and clunky like Battlefield now. Absolute shitshow.

• 
  Erick Ybarra (@ErickYbarra3) reported 3 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 lastly, 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.

• 
  Ken. L (@KendogxX) reported 4 minutes ago

  @BTurnh @FragSavage @Xaviernukes 2042? Umm don't waste your money on that because its still not a great game. If you're on PC, you'll have a hard time finding matches right away because the matchmaking is broken and there's no server browser. Probably try other Battlefield titles with a server browser instead

• 
  Kate from Kharkiv (@BohuslavskaKate) reported 4 minutes ago

  STUBB: Putin is not winning this war, and won't win. Ukraine has, de facto, already won this war. It’s as simple as that. Putin made colossal mistake by invading Ukraine in the first place. He underestimated Ukrainian army, its response. He overestimated his military capacity, or we wouldn't be 4.5 years into this war with the losses he's suffered. Putin also underestimated unity and support of the West. You know, we’re still here, and we’re not going away. There seems to be a lack of honest people around Putin who can tell him about real situation on the battlefield. And that's the problem. I mean, Putin will not win this war. That’s why I think it would be good to stop the killing.

• 
  GI Joey (@GI_Joey_) reported 5 minutes ago

  @MrProWestie Still doesn't fix the SBMM and CHEATER issues mate. Come on, be honest, like you did years ago...about Battlefield 3, 4, 1 and 5. Rightnow you sound like someone who's being "bribed". Be honest again! Be the "Westie" you was...and tell us what the real problems are of MW4! 👊

• 
  Ohio Treasure Trove (@OHIO_Trove) reported 6 minutes ago

  steam needs to refund anyone that requests it for battlefield 6, it has always had issues with crashing but now you cant even make it through one game/ I am sick of troubleshooting, i want a game i can play for $70.

• 
  یانگ پاچینو (@MEHRDAD_dhm) reported 8 minutes ago

  @Battlefield Instead of posting memes about game , FIX UR GAME! ME & MY TEAM WILL LEAVE BEHIND BF6 ON23 OCT I REALLY LIKE #MW4!

• 
  D💯 (@Blizzy63) reported 9 minutes ago

  @AgentW23 @_Moon_runner @Battlefield -bullet dispersion why? Give us a classic experience - Terrible Audio tweaks each fix - no jet loadouts 5 months later - no bullet registration fixes - no dsync fixes - Asian players in US/EU servers STILL ABUSING LAG COMP - FLAIRS ARE BUGGED TO **** Anything else?

• 
  BUZZ3R (@BUZZ3RX) reported 9 minutes ago

  @Battlefield For Christ's sake FIX YOUR KERNEL ANTI CHEAT ERRORS! Once again memory access error and this time it caused my PC to shut off! (0x000000D1 error in event viewer)

• 
  Lost In LA (@lost_in_la) reported 9 minutes ago

  @pdxraj @lookner I don’t believe that but high tolerance for conventional casualties ≠ indifference to battlefield contamination that can immobilize your own advance and logistics. Those are different problems.

• 
  Big Brain AI (@realBigBrainAI) reported 9 minutes ago

  Palantir co-founder and CEO Alex Karp on why almost every company buying AI is getting nothing back for it: Karp's diagnosis is short and unkind: "The classic Silicon Valley way up until recently was just buy some large language model and have a nice chat with it, and that really doesn't create any actual enterprise value." That's the whole failure mode. A model gets procured, a chat window appears, nobody's revenue changes. His alternative starts with a definition he says Palantir arrived at years before the rest of the market: "We were years ahead for lots of reasons of anticipating what operational AI would mean. Meaning AI where you make more money or your revenue goes up and your costs go down." Two lines on the P&L. Nothing else counts. Karp claims the numbers follow from that. "We have a thriving commercial business. It grew 71% last quarter. And we're at a very pretty significant scale." He also flags something rarer in the sector: "We make money on our money, which is unusual in software. People have growth but no profitability. We have a lot of both." So why does the same underlying technology produce nothing at most companies and revenue at his? Karp says the answer is "a little more technical," and it isn't the model: "Our platforms are built to use large language models and machine learning in a way that is actually operationally effective. We had a relatively privileged insight into how you would do that and built this thing called an ontology which manages large language models in a way where they become crazily useful both commercially and actually on the battlefield." The ontology is the missing layer. A model on its own doesn't know what your business is made of. Something has to translate between the two before the model can touch anything that matters. What it gets used for is deliberately unglamorous. Karp lists underwriting, acquisition of real estate at scale, construction at scale, and supply chain management — "anywhere where you have volatility." He picks out one problem specifically: "Understanding the true cost of inputs into your enterprise, which is super hard to do at scale, especially if things are shifting or there's disruptions." And the larger version of the job: "reimagining your business into a digital as opposed to a non-digital business." Then he moves from the technology to the thing he actually treats as the differentiator — who carries the risk that none of it works: "Our claim to fame really is we absorb the risk of creating value." He contrasts that with how enterprise software is normally sold, in language he flags as the vulgar version: "The way you're taught to build a software company is your customer thinks they're getting laid but they're getting effed." Palantir's internal reframing: "We used to internally say no, we're in the mutual pleasuring business. Both sides should be happy." In practice that means the vendor is on the hook for the outcome, not just the licence: "We absorb the risk of value creation. So like you will make more money, your enterprise will work better. That's been a bonanza and we're pretty much alone in doing that in the world." Karp doesn't claim it's all his own execution. He credits the moment too: "The truth is we're also riding the back of the fact that this is just an American revolution." Underneath the specifics, he also frames the commercial work as secondary to something else. Asked what matters most, his first answer isn't revenue at all: "The most important thing we've done for you is help establish dominance on the battlefield with the DoD and stop hundreds of terror attacks."

• 
  Ambrigalist 🇩🇪 (@ambrigalist) reported 11 minutes ago

  @VeryBadSCAVR Played Rainbow six, Halo, Destiny, CoD, overwatch and Battlefield all had bigger hit boxes and some kind of aim assist. They should just give people a option to search for lobbys that accept aim assist aka "Arcade" games, and Advanced where tou actually need to aim. Aim assist Hardware has been getting out of hand and even softaim software and hardware can't be traced anymore. But aim assist should be disabled to not follow players enemys behind and trough smokes. I don't think aim assist is bad for shooters. SBMM after playing rounds I noticed, that I no longer play against people who use Hardware and software external game seetings to see in the dark and less lag switch users and ping abusers in lobbys.

• 
  Straggler Liu | AI & Semis (@StragglerLiu) reported 14 minutes ago

  TSMC's AP7 facility tells you everything about the next AI bottleneck. P1 is an Apple WMCM line. P2 and P3 were supposed to be SoIC. They're now CoWoS. CoWoS demand killed SoIC capacity before SoIC even ramped. This is the physical reality of advanced packaging. Apple and NVIDIA aren't competitors in the traditional sense. They're competitors for the same cleanroom floors. The physical convergence, in three numbers. SoIC uses copper-to-copper hybrid bonding at 6-micron pitch. Interconnect density: 25,000 to 50,000 connections per square millimeter. Compare to standard microbumps at 600 to 1,000. SoIC is an order of magnitude denser. That's the vertical stacking solution. WMCM is horizontal: logic, LPDDR, and high-speed I/O side-by-side on the redistribution layer. RDL-first process. SoIC and WMCM are complementary, not substitutes. One does vertical. One does horizontal. Both require TSMC's most advanced packaging capacity. The capacity math that matters. CoWoS monthly capacity: 140,000 wafers by end-2026, 190,000-200,000 by end-2027. NVIDIA books over half. Mizuho: NVIDIA CoWoS allocation 630,000 wafers in 2026, 1,005,000 in 2027. WMCM: 60,000 wpm by end-2026, >120,000 wpm in 2027. Apple's line. SoIC: 10,000-15,000 wpm by end-2026. Morgan Stanley raised 2027 SoIC estimate to 45,000 wpm. Apple has booked 36,000 SoIC wafers for 2026, 60,000 for 2027 — almost entirely for Baltra AI server chip. NVIDIA's 2027 SoIC consumption: 120,000 wafers. That's 180,000 SoIC wafers of demand against 45,000 wpm of capacity. The math doesn't close. AP7 P2/P3 conversion tells you who wins today. TSMC converted P2 and P3 from SoIC to CoWoS because CoWoS demand exceeded expectations. CoWoS urgency is squeezing SoIC expansion. P1 remains Apple's WMCM line, but the SoIC capacity Apple needed for 2027 is now partially reallocated. The material signal confirms the convergence. Apple's M5 uses LMC liquid molding compound from Eternal Materials. This material was developed specifically for TSMC's CoWoS specifications. Apple is using CoWoS-grade materials to produce SoIC/WMCM chips. Same material. Same factories. Same equipment. Conflict is physical, not commercial. SoIC is the next battlefield — and it's capital-intensive. SoIC unit capex: $6.8-7.0 billion per 10,000 wafers of monthly capacity. Compare to CoWoS. The technical barrier is extreme. Equipment: Besi hybrid bonder, Applied Materials, Tokyo Electron. Taiwan wet process: 弘塑, 均华. NVIDIA's Rubin GPU: first chiplet design. Two compute chips + one I/O chip via SoIC vertical stacking, then eight HBM4 stacks via CoWoS. Apple's M5 Ultra already uses SoIC-mH. Both collide at SoIC in 2027. 2nm allocation already hints at the outcome. Apple has secured >50% of TSMC's initial 2nm capacity. NVIDIA's Rubin reportedly remains on 3nm. Apple dominates process. NVIDIA dominates packaging. Both are penetrating each other's territory. Apple needs NVIDIA-dominated CoWoS. NVIDIA needs Apple-dominated 2nm. This is mutual lock-in, not zero-sum. Four signals to track in the next 12 months. First, AP7 P2/P3 reallocation. Will TSMC convert P2/P3 back to SoIC as demand evolves? If not, SoIC capacity becomes the binding constraint earlier than expected. Second, SoIC yield. Hybrid bonding at 6-micron pitch is technically extreme. Unit capex of $6.8-7B per 10k wpm means any yield issue destroys economics. Yield curve is undisclosed. Third, WMCM ramp. 60,000 wpm by end-2026 and 120,000 wpm in 2027 are analyst estimates. AP7 P1 actual progress needs tracking. Any delay signals capacity constraints. Fourth, LMC supply. Eternal Materials is the sole CoWoS-spec LMC supplier. Both Apple and NVIDIA use the same material from the same supplier. Single point of failure. Conclusion. TSMC is expanding 2027 advanced packaging capacity from 1.3 million to 2.0 million wafers — a 53.85% increase. But demand is growing faster. CoWoS order visibility extends through 2027. AP7 P2/P3 conversion tells you which customer has more urgency today. The next 12 months aren't about who announces what chip. They're about four data points: AP7 P2/P3 reallocation, SoIC yield, WMCM ramp, and LMC supply. Those determine who gets the cleanroom floors.

• 
  🐐 (@MultigunFun) reported 18 minutes ago

  Battlefield Vegas just retired a broken HK 416 after the trunnion broke after 200k+ rounds. nice