CCP's 2026 War Plan: Big promises, thin specifics (for now)

By now, you've almost certainly heard about CCP's plan for 2026. If not, there's plenty of coverage to catch up on — MassivelyOP, ShackNews, and MMORPG all have writeups, and fellow EVE bloggers like The Ancient Gaming Noob have already weighed in. But after spending a full hour watching the "Directors' Letter Chat: 2026 & Beyond," and then going over the news items, I wanted to add my own take to the pile. 

Fair warning: there's a mountain of content to unpack here, so settle in.

CCP just laid down their 2026 direction for EVE, and it's basically this: Factional Warfare becomes the backbone of a three-expansion "war saga,*" powered by something they're calling Military Campaigns. The pitch is straightforward—clear objectives, real outcomes, and a smoother path for new and returning players to matter early. (* the Viking vibe is strong here)

I'm interested… and I'm also doing the veteran thing where I squint at the fine print that isn't there yet. Because right now, this is strategy and intent, not a feature spec. Lots of "we want," "we're exploring," and "we'll iterate." Which can be totally fine—as long as the guardrails show up before the grind does. Trust me, I've been there, and I've seen my fair share over overhype.

What CCP actually committed to

New players: Purpose from day one (without dumbing EVE down)

Let's start here, because this might be the most important piece of the entire roadmap, even if some of you will argue that one. CCP openly acknowledges the problem: new players leave too early, and EVE can't grow if that leak stays open. The 2026 focus is about making the early experience less of a cliff—keeping knowledge mastery where it matters, and smoothing the parts that are just confusing for no good reason.

The campaign system is positioned as the scaffolding here. "What should I do today?" should have an easier answer, new players should see how they contribute, and the path from solo to social should feel less intimidating, or at the very least, facilitated.

What's promising: If CCP can make "first losses" feel like learning instead of humiliation, retention improves. And this isn't just about warm feelings—it's about survival. EVE's complexity is a feature, but the cliff between "I want to learn this" and "I'm uninstalling" is too steep. Military Campaigns could be the bridge that keeps people in long enough to fall in love with the game.

What could go wrong: If "day one impact" is mostly progress bars and chores, it'll feel like theme-park onboarding—and EVE players can smell fake agency from three regions away.

The returning player question: Here's what CCP didn't address directly, and it matters just as much. What about veterans who left two, three, five years ago? The ones who know how to fly but don't know where they fit anymore? The campaign structure could work beautifully for them too—clear objectives, visible contribution, reason to log in—but CCP needs to spell out how a returning 2019 player with 50 million SP plugs into this system without feeling like they're starting over or drowning in catch-up. If the campaigns are designed only for day-one newbies, that's a missed opportunity. If they're designed for anyone who needs direction and stakes, that's transformative.

Three expansions focused on FW + military campaigns

CCP's official line is blunt: the next three expansions are aimed at elevating Factional Warfare into "war with real stakes," and Military Campaigns are the structure they want to use to do it.

In the dev chat, they describe campaigns as a war framework with clear arcs (beginning, middle, end), objectives you can win or lose, multiple ways to contribute (frontline fighting and backline support), and outcomes that are supposed to feel meaningful and visible.

What's promising: EVE is at its best when conflict has shape. FW has needed more than "plex until you're numb" for years. And if campaigns can give both brand-new alphas and returning bittervets a shared battlefield where contribution scales with engagement rather than raw SP, that's a design win.

What's still fuzzy: "Real stakes" can mean anything from cosmetic story beats to economic modifiers to map changes. CCP didn't define it in mechanical terms yet.

March major update: Confirmed date, unclear contents

They explicitly say there's a major update in March, and that major updates are where they course-correct balance, iterate on expansion fallout, and spotlight changes that would get drowned out inside a big expansion package. They also specifically tease wormhole updates and content as part of that March update—without details.

Veteran translation: We know when. We don't know what, and wormholes are a part of the game where "small changes" can have big consequences.

Carriers: More changes coming, plus performance reality

They say carrier usage is up after recent adjustments, they're happy with the direction, and there are more "top tier upgrades" they're saving for FanFest. They also admit a very EVE problem: more carriers on grid means performance issues show up that weren't obvious in testing.

What I want to see: role clarity and counterplay. "More carriers" is not automatically good if it flattens subcap diversity or turns fights into slideshow roulette.

Vanguard: Alpha summer target, early access 2027

The Vanguard segment is refreshingly candid: gunfeel and core fantasy still need work, and they're moving from pre-alpha experimentation into building an alpha that's more cohesive and polished. They say the date will be announced at FanFest, they're aiming for a summer Steam playtest as the first alpha test, and they're targeting Early Access in 2027.

Also: the EVE ↔ Vanguard connection is still being shaped, with more details planned for FanFest.

Skeptical note: "Connection" is a controversy magnet if it becomes advantage. CCP needs explicit boundaries and anti-abuse logic, not vibes.

DUST 514 context: What history teaches us about Vanguard (without doomposting)

This isn't CCP's first attempt at an EVE-connected shooter. DUST 514 launched as a PlayStation 3 exclusive and was shut down on May 30, 2016. CCP leadership has since admitted, bluntly, that the console exclusivity was a mistake that hurt the game's survival. Being chained to an aging, walled-garden platform created a structural handicap DUST could never escape.

Vanguard dodges that specific trap. It's being built for PC/Steam with open development, public tests, and iterative event-style deployments. That removes a massive adoption ceiling and lifecycle risk. But platform choice was only part of DUST's problem.

The harder lesson: the core game has to stand on its own. DUST had cool meta ambitions, but if the minute-to-minute shooter loop isn't great, the EVE connection becomes garnish on a mediocre meal. Vanguard's own messaging acknowledges this—CCP is emphasizing "core experience," "fantasy," and polish as gating items before they go wider. That's the right instinct, and it's a lesson learned the hard way.

The danger zone: integration without guardrails. Any meaningful connection between games risks perceived pay-to-win, economic exploits, bot farms, and resentment from players who don't want to touch the FPS. CCP knows this is radioactive, which is why the language stays careful and experimental. But until they publish constraints—hard rules, caps, exclusions, anti-abuse logic—it's all vibes.

Questions DUST history teaches you to ask:

1. What is the "link" actually allowed to do? Hard exclusions matter more than aspirational talk.
2. Is there any direct advantage in EVE for playing Vanguard (or vice versa)? If "no," define "advantage."
3. If there is influence, what are the caps, cooldowns, and anti-abuse controls?
4. How do they prevent the linkage from becoming a farm loop that prints value into New Eden?
5. What happens if Vanguard population dips—does the EVE side get stuck with half-working mechanics?
6. Monetization: will Vanguard push cosmetics only, or power/progression shortcuts? (DUST got heat for grind/monetization feel.)
7. How do they avoid "mandatory shooter" pressure for alliances/corps who just want spaceships?

The clean takeaway: DUST's platform choice was a structural handicap CCP has effectively admitted. Vanguard removes that specific problem, but it still faces the harder one: make the shooter fun, then connect it to EVE without creating advantage controversy or economic exploits. The "single universe" pitch is a repeat theme—so veterans are right to ask for constraints, safeguards, and measurable boundaries, not just narrative ambition.

The anti-hype checklist: What's solid vs what's non-committal

Solid / Anchored:

• Three-expansion war arc centered on FW and Military Campaigns
• March major update exists (date stated in the talk)
• Vanguard aiming for alpha playtest in summer, EA in 2027 (still no hard dates)
• Explicit focus on new player retention and day-one purpose
• Vanguard is PC/Steam-focused, not platform-locked like DUST

Non-committal / "We'll explore":

• Exact mechanics of "real stakes"
• What counts as a campaign "win" or "loss"
• How returning players with existing skills plug into campaigns
• Wormhole specifics
• What "top tier" carrier upgrades actually are
• The real shape of Vanguard ↔ EVE influence (the big one)
• Anti-abuse and advantage boundaries for cross-game interaction

What I'll be watching next

Definitions, not slogans: What "real stakes" mechanically means.

Onboarding that respects intelligence: New player tools that teach without patronizing, and explain loss without sugarcoating it.

The returning player pathway: How someone who unsubbed in 2020 finds their footing in 2026 campaigns without tutorial hell.

Safeguards: Anti-farm, anti-bot, and anti-snowball measures baked into campaign design.

Newbie loss handling: Tools that make early PvP survivable emotionally and financially—ship replacement, mentorship hooks, failure-as-progression feedback.

Wormhole patch notes: Edge cases and unintended consequence management.

Vanguard linkage rules: Explicit caps, exclusions, and opt-in/opt-out clarity. This is where DUST's ghost lives, and CCP needs to exorcise it with published constraints, not marketing copy.

---

Looking forward: 25 years of New Eden, and the weight of what comes next

EVE Online turns 25 in 2028—May 6th to be exact. Let that sink in for a moment. A quarter century of capsuleers, corpses, empires built and burned, friendships forged in fire and betrayal. There are very few games—very few anything in the digital world—that survive that long, much less thrive.

CCP's 2026 roadmap isn't just a feature list. It's a bet on what EVE needs to make it to 30, 35, beyond.

 And the bet is this: EVE survives by welcoming new blood without diluting what makes it EVE.

That's always been the paradox. 

The brutal learning curve is a feature until it kills retention. The political intrigue and long-term consequences are legendary until there's nobody left to inherit the sandbox. The "you matter" promise rings hollow if a newbie gets dunked three times in FW and quits because there's no visible path from "I died" to "I learned something" to "I want revenge."

Military Campaigns, if done right, could thread that needle. They give structure without scripts. They give stakes without theme-park rails. They create a shared front where a three-day-old alpha in a T1 frigate and a returning bittervet in a cruiser both have a reason to log in and a way to see their contribution matter. That's the kind of design that compounds—it doesn't just retain players, it creates stories. And stories are what keep EVE alive.

But here's the thing: CCP has earned skepticism, and they've also earned hope. The skepticism comes from years of "we're iterating" that sometimes meant "we're stalling," from features that shipped half-baked, from promises about connection and consequence that fizzled into cosmetics and flavor text. The hope comes from the fact that they're still here, still swinging, still willing to admit mistakes (DUST, console exclusivity, carrier balance issues, new player cliffs) and course-correct.

The hope also comes from this: EVE has survived longer than most studios, most games, most genres. It's done that not because it played it safe, but because it kept trying things that should have killed it and somehow made them work. The CSM. Wormholes. Skill injectors. Abyssal deadspace. Pochven. Some worked better than others, but the willingness to take the risk is what keeps New Eden from calcifying.

So as we head into the first year of EVE's third decade, here's what I'm watching for:

• Follow-through. Not just launches, but iteration. Not just hype, but patch notes that show CCP listened to the grind, the edge cases, the ways players will break the system.
• Courage to set boundaries. Especially on Vanguard. The "single universe" dream is seductive, but unconstrained dreams become exploits. If CCP can publish hard rules—this far, no further—that's a sign they've learned.
• Retention that compounds. New players who stay long enough to become bittervets. Returning players who find their footing without starting over. That's how you get to 30 years.
• And maybe, just maybe, a little bit of magic. The kind EVE still pulls off when everything clicks—when a newbie makes their first solo kill in a campaign fight and realizes they just helped flip a system, when a returning player finds their old corpmates in a war that actually matters, when the sandbox stops feeling empty and starts feeling alive again.

CCP's 2026 roadmap is thin on specifics and heavy on intent. 

That's frustrating, and it's also fair—this is strategy, not a feature spec. 

But the direction is right. 

Give people a reason to stay. 

Give conflict a shape. 

Make the first hundred hours survivable. 

Build bridges, not walls.

EVE has always been the game that shouldn't have worked. Too hard, too mean, too niche, too unforgiving. And yet here we are, 23 years in, talking about the road to 25 and beyond.

If CCP can deliver on even half of what they're promising—if Military Campaigns give wars real stakes, if new players can survive their first month, if Vanguard becomes a game people want to play instead of a chore they have to play—then New Eden's third decade might be its best one yet.

And if they stumble? Well, we'll be here to tell them exactly where they stepped on the rake, because that's what EVE players do. We stay. We critique. We adapt. We endure. And in some cases, we even come back!

Fly dangerous, capsuleers. The next 25 years start now.