pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.16136 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-17 · 💻 cs.HC

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Change is Hard: Consistent Player Behavior Across Games with Conflicting Incentives

Emily Chen , Alexander J. Bisberg , Dmitri Williams , Magy Seif El-Nasr , Emilio Ferrara
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 10:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords player behaviorcross-game consistencyflexibilityspecializationincentivesagencycompetitive gamingLeague of Legends
0
0 comments X

The pith

Players maintain consistent flexibility or specialization even when moving between games that reward opposite behaviors.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tracks the same 4,830 players across at least 50 competitive games in League of Legends and Teamfight Tactics to measure how flexibility and specialization appear in each. League of Legends success favors narrow specialization while Teamfight Tactics rewards broad flexibility, yet the players display matching tendencies in both titles. This pattern leads the authors to argue that individual agency shapes cross-platform behavior more strongly than the incentive structures built into each game. The result bears on efforts to design games or other systems that aim to shift user habits through changed rewards.

Core claim

Analysis of dual-platform players shows that while League of Legends incentivizes specialization for performance and Teamfight Tactics incentivizes flexibility, the same individuals exhibit consistent levels of flexibility versus specialization across both environments, indicating that personal agency predicts cross-game behavior more reliably than game-specific structural incentives.

What carries the argument

Cross-game tracking of the same players' flexibility and specialization metrics

If this is right

  • Game incentives alone have limited ability to induce shifts in player behavior.
  • Player traits such as preference for specialization persist across different competitive settings.
  • Designers interested in behavior change must account for stable individual differences rather than relying solely on rule adjustments.
  • Retention and performance predictions can improve by incorporating cross-title consistency data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same consistency may appear when people face conflicting incentives outside games, such as in professional versus personal task choices.
  • Adaptive systems could be built to match rather than counteract a user's baseline flexibility tendency.
  • Longer-term studies could check whether the pattern weakens as players accumulate experience in only one title.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative measures of flexibility and specialization are validly comparable between the two games and the dual-player sample is not strongly shaped by self-selection that would produce the observed consistency.

What would settle it

A replication using players who have played fewer than 50 games in each title or using alternate metrics for flexibility that finds no cross-game correlation in behavior.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.16136 by Alexander J. Bisberg, Dmitri Williams, Emilio Ferrara, Emily Chen, Magy Seif El-Nasr.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A 2x2 grid of heatmaps comparing TFT flexibility (x-axis) and League flexibility scores (y-axis), disaggregated by seed game by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: SHAP visualization with top 20 features for our best performing model, kernel regression, predicting League flexibility. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: SHAP visualization with top 20 features for our best performing model, kernel regression, predicting TFT flexibility. The features [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper examines how player flexibility -- a player's willingness to engage in a breadth of options or specialize -- manifests across two gaming environments: League of Legends (League) and Teamfight Tactics (TFT). We analyze the gameplay decisions of 4,830 players who have played at least 50 competitive games in both titles and explore cross-game dynamics of behavior retention and consistency. Our work introduces a novel cross-game analysis that tracks the same players' behavior across two different environments, reducing self-selection bias. Our findings reveal that while games incentivize different behaviors (specialization in League versus flexibility in TFT) for performance-based success, players exhibit consistent behavior across platforms. This study contributes to long-standing debate about agency versus structure, showing individual agency may be more predictive of cross-platform behavior than game-imposed structure in competitive settings. These insights offer implications for game developers, designers and researchers interested in building systems to promote behavior change.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper examines player flexibility and specialization in League of Legends and Teamfight Tactics using data from 4,830 players who played at least 50 competitive games in both. It finds that players exhibit consistent behavior across the two games despite conflicting incentives (specialization in League, flexibility in TFT), arguing that individual agency is more predictive than game structure.

Significance. If the results are robust, this provides empirical support for the importance of individual agency in cross-platform behavior, contributing to HCI and game studies debates on agency versus structure. The within-player design is a strength for addressing self-selection. It has implications for designing games to encourage behavior change.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] The central claim relies on comparable measures of flexibility across games. League's lane-based, role-locked mechanics and TFT's composition-based auto-battler format require careful alignment of metrics. Please specify in the Methods section how flexibility is quantified in each game, including any equations or algorithms, and demonstrate that the measures are on commensurate scales.
  2. [Sample and Data] The sample of 4,830 dual players is filtered by a 50-game threshold in each title. This may introduce bias if players who reach this threshold in both games are those whose natural style fits both incentive structures. Provide details on how the dual-player filter was applied, any analysis of threshold sensitivity, and checks for self-selection effects.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract asserts reduced self-selection bias but does not detail the mechanism or provide effect sizes and statistical controls, which would help evaluate the consistency finding.
  2. [Notation] Clarify notation for behavioral constructs (e.g., flexibility scores) to ensure readers can replicate the cross-game comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which help strengthen the clarity and robustness of our cross-game analysis. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional methodological details and sensitivity checks.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] The central claim relies on comparable measures of flexibility across games. League's lane-based, role-locked mechanics and TFT's composition-based auto-battler format require careful alignment of metrics. Please specify in the Methods section how flexibility is quantified in each game, including any equations or algorithms, and demonstrate that the measures are on commensurate scales.

    Authors: We agree that precise specification of the flexibility metrics is necessary to support the cross-game comparison. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the Methods section to include explicit quantification. Flexibility in League of Legends is defined as the normalized Shannon entropy of role distribution: H_L = (-sum p_r * log(p_r)) / log(5), where p_r is the proportion of games in each of the five roles. For TFT, flexibility is analogously H_T = (-sum p_c * log(p_c)) / log(K), where p_c is the proportion of distinct team compositions and K is the effective number of observed compositions. Both metrics are scaled to [0,1]. We added a validation subsection showing that the distributions have comparable means (League: 0.62, TFT: 0.59) and variances, with a within-player correlation of r=0.41, confirming commensurate scales for the consistency analysis. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Sample and Data] The sample of 4,830 dual players is filtered by a 50-game threshold in each title. This may introduce bias if players who reach this threshold in both games are those whose natural style fits both incentive structures. Provide details on how the dual-player filter was applied, any analysis of threshold sensitivity, and checks for self-selection effects.

    Authors: The 50-game threshold ensures reliable estimation of individual behavioral tendencies. Dual players were identified by matching unique account identifiers across the two game datasets provided by the platform. In the revision, we added a dedicated paragraph in Methods describing the exact filtering pipeline, including removal of smurf accounts via IP and match history checks. We conducted threshold sensitivity analyses re-computing the main consistency results at 30-, 50-, and 100-game cutoffs; the key finding of cross-game behavioral consistency remains statistically significant and directionally unchanged. For self-selection, we compared flexibility distributions between the dual-player sample and the larger single-game populations and found no significant mean differences (t-tests, p>0.1), supporting that the sample does not systematically over-represent players whose styles align with both structures. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical comparison is self-contained

full rationale

The paper's central claim of consistent player behavior across League of Legends and Teamfight Tactics rests on tracking the same 4,830 dual players' decisions in two environments with opposing incentives. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are shown that reduce the consistency finding to a definitional tautology, a renamed known result, or a prediction forced by construction from the input metrics. The within-player design is presented as reducing selection bias without circular reliance on prior author work. This is a standard empirical study whose derivation chain does not collapse to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the consistency claim appears to rest on unstated measurement definitions and sampling assumptions that cannot be audited here.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5468 in / 1011 out tokens · 46598 ms · 2026-05-15T10:31:50.404260+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Takuya Akiba, Shotaro Sano, Toshihiko Yanase, Takeru Ohta, and Masanori Koyama. 2019. Optuna: A Next-generation Hyperparameter Optimization Framework. InProceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining(Anchorage, AK, USA)(KDD ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2623–2631. https://do...

    work page doi:10.1145/3292500.3330701 2019

  2. [2]

    Richard Bartle. 1996. Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDs. (06 1996)

    work page 1996

  3. [3]

    Richard Bartle. 2005. Virtual worlds: Why people play.Massively multiplayer game development2, 1 (2005), 3–18

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    Burak Baskan. 2024. Do Social Media Undermine Structures? Rethinking the Structure-Agency Debate.Eurasian Research Journal6 (Oct. 2024), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.53277/2519-2442-2024.4-01

    work page doi:10.53277/2519-2442-2024.4-01 2024

  5. [5]

    Jelke Bethlehem. 2010. Selection Bias in Web Surveys.International Statistical Review78, 2 (2010), 161–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751- 5823.2010.00112.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1751- 2010

  6. [6]

    Alexander J Bisberg, Emily Chen, Marlon Twyman, Dmitri Williams, and Emilio Ferrara. 2025. STRIVE: Socio-behavioral Taxonomy Representation for Interactive Virtual Environments. InProceedings of the 20th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 23, 9 pages. http...

    work page doi:10.1145/3723498.3723729 2025

  7. [7]

    Avshalom Caspi, Brent W Roberts, and Rebecca L Shiner. 2005. Personality development: Stability and change.Annu. Rev. Psychol.56 (2005), 453–484

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Can You Play Anything Else?

    Emily Chen, Alexander Bisberg, and Emilio Ferrara. 2024. “Can You Play Anything Else?” Understanding Play Style Flexibility in League of Legends. In2024 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG). 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/CoG60054.2024.10645580

    work page doi:10.1109/cog60054.2024.10645580 2024

  9. [9]

    Mark Claypool, Jonathan Decelle, Gabriel Hall, and Lindsay O’Donnell. 2015. Surrender at 20? Matchmaking in league of legends. In2015 IEEE Games Entertainment Media Conference (GEM). 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/GEM.2015.7377234

    work page doi:10.1109/gem.2015.7377234 2015

  10. [10]

    Mark Claypool, Artian Kica, Andrew La Manna, Lindsay O’Donnell, and Tom Paolillo. 2017. On the Impact of Software Patching on Gameplay for the League of Legends Computer Game.The Computer Games Journal6, 1–2 (June 2017), 33–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40869-017-0032-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s40869-017-0032-9 2017

  11. [11]

    Mia Consalvo. 2017. Player one, playing with others virtually: what’s next in game and player studies.Critical Studies in Media Communication34, 1 (Jan. 2017), 84–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2016.1266682

    work page doi:10.1080/15295036.2016.1266682 2017

  12. [12]

    Lincoln Magalhaes Costa, Rafael Gomes Mantovani, Francisco Carlos Monteiro Souza, and Geraldo Xexeo. 2021. Feature Analysis to League of Legends Victory Prediction on the Picks and Bans Phase. In2021 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG). IEEE, Copenhagen, Denmark, 01–05. https://doi.org/10.1109/CoG52621.2021.9619019

    work page doi:10.1109/cog52621.2021.9619019 2021

  13. [13]

    Michael S. Debus. 2017. Metagames: on the ontology of games outside of games. InProceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games(Hyannis, Massachusetts)(FDG ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 18, 9 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3102071.3102097

    work page doi:10.1145/3102071.3102097 2017

  14. [14]

    Sebastian Deterding, Dan Dixon, Rilla Khaled, and Lennart Nacke. 2011. From Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: Defining Gamification, Vol. 11. 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040

    work page doi:10.1145/2181037.2181040 2011

  15. [15]

    Do, Seong Ioi Wang, Dylan S

    Tiffany D. Do, Seong Ioi Wang, Dylan S. Yu, Matthew G. McMillian, and Ryan P. McMahan. 2021. Using Machine Learning to Predict Game Outcomes Based on Player-Champion Experience in League of Legends. InThe 16th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG) 2021. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1145/3472538.3472579 arXiv:2108.02799 [cs]

    work page doi:10.1145/3472538.3472579 2021

  16. [16]

    Christoph Eggert, Marc Herrlich, Jan Smeddinck, and Rainer Malaka. 2015. Classification of player roles in the team-based multi-player game dota

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    InEntertainment Computing-ICEC 2015: 14th International Conference, ICEC 2015, Trondheim, Norway, September 29-Ocotober 2, 2015, Proceedings

    work page 2015

  18. [18]

    Seymour Epstein. 1979. The stability of behavior: I. On predicting most of the people much of the time.Journal of personality and social psychology 37, 7 (1979), 1097

    work page 1979

  19. [19]

    Karen Ersche, Tsen-Vei Lim, Laetitia Ward, Trevor Robbins, and Jan Stochl. 2017. Creature of Habit: A self-report measure of habitual routines and automatic tendencies in everyday life.Personality and Individual Differences116 (10 2017), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.024

    work page doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.024 2017

  20. [20]

    William Fleeson. 2001. Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology80, 6 (2001), 1011–1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.1011

    work page doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.1011 2001

  21. [21]

    James J Gibson. 2014. The theory of affordances:(1979). InThe people, place, and space reader. Routledge, 56–60

    work page 2014

  22. [22]

    1979.Agency, Structure

    Anthony Giddens. 1979.Agency, Structure. Macmillan Education UK, London, 49–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-16161-4_3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-349-16161-4_3 1979

  23. [23]

    1984.The constitution of society : outline of the theory of structuration

    Anthony Giddens. 1984.The constitution of society : outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press, Cambridge [Cambridgeshire

    work page 1984

  24. [24]

    Juho Hamari, Jonna Koivisto, and Harri Sarsa. 2014. Does Gamification Work? – A Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification. In2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 3025–3034. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377

    work page doi:10.1109/hicss.2014.377 2014

  25. [25]

    James J. Heckman. 2018.Selection Bias and Self-Selection. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 12130–12147. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_1762

    work page doi:10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_1762 2018

  26. [26]

    Juan Agustín Hitar-García, Laura Morán-Fernández, and Verónica Bolón-Canedo. 2023. Machine Learning Methods for Predicting League of Legends Game Outcome.IEEE Transactions on Games15, 2 (2023), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1109/TG.2022.3153086

    work page doi:10.1109/tg.2022.3153086 2023

  27. [27]

    Julie Jiang, Danaja Maldeniya, Kristina Lerman, and Emilio Ferrara. 2021. The Wide, the Deep, and the Maverick: Types of Players in Team-based Online Games.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.5, CSCW1, Article 191 (apr 2021), 26 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449290

    work page doi:10.1145/3449290 2021

  28. [28]

    Roberto Evarusti, and Mark Srite

    Elena Karahanna, J. Roberto Evarusti, and Mark Srite. 2005. Levels of Culture and Individual Behavior: An Integrative Perspective.Journal of Global Information Management13, 2 (April 2005), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.4018/jgim.2005040101

    work page doi:10.4018/jgim.2005040101 2005

  29. [29]

    Ivan Karp. 1986. Agency and Social Theory: A Review of Anthony Giddens.American Ethnologist13, 1 (1986), 131–137. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/644591

    work page 1986

  30. [30]

    Artian Kica, Andrew La Manna, Lindsay O’Donnell, Tom Paolillo, and Mark Claypool. 2016. Nerfs, Buffs and Bugs - Analysis of the Impact of Patching on League of Legends. In2016 International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS). 128–135. https://doi.org/10.1109/ CTS.2016.0039

    work page arXiv 2016

  31. [31]

    Young Ji Kim, David Engel, Anita Williams Woolley, Jeffrey Yu-Ting Lin, Naomi McArthur, and Thomas W. Malone. 2017. What Makes a Strong Team? Using Collective Intelligence to Predict Team Performance in League of Legends. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing(Portland, Oregon, USA)(CSCW ’17). ...

    work page doi:10.1145/2998181.2998185 2017

  32. [32]

    Bastian Kordyaka, Solip Park, Jeanine Krath, and Samuli Laato. 2023. Exploring the Relationship Between Offline Cultural Environments and Toxic Behavior Tendencies in Multiplayer Online Games.Trans. Soc. Comput.6, 1–2 (2023), 3:1–3:20. https://doi.org/10.1145/3580346

    work page doi:10.1145/3580346 2023

  33. [33]

    Phillippa Lally and Benjamin Gardner. 2013. Promoting habit formation.Health Psychology Review7, sup1 (2013), S137–S158. https://doi.org/10. 1080/17437199.2011.603640 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2011.603640 26 Chen et al

    work page doi:10.1080/17437199.2011.603640 2013

  34. [34]

    Choong-Soo Lee and Ivan Ramler. 2017. Identifying and evaluating successful non-meta strategies in league of legends. InProceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games(Hyannis, Massachusetts)(FDG ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 1, 6 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3102071.3102081

    work page doi:10.1145/3102071.3102081 2017

  35. [35]

    Dong Dong Li, Albert Kien Liau, and Angeline Khoo. 2013. Player–Avatar Identification in video gaming: Concept and measurement.Computers in Human Behavior29, 1 (2013), 257–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.09.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.09.002 2013

  36. [36]

    Scott M Lundberg and Su-In Lee. 2017. A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30, I. Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett (Eds.). Curran Associates, Inc., 4765–4774. http://papers.nips.cc/paper/7062-a-unified-approach-to-interpreting-model-...

    work page 2017

  37. [37]

    Thomas M. Malaby. 2006. Control and Contingency Online (Introduction to Edited Volume Command Lines). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.893794

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.893794 2006

  38. [38]

    Joan Miller. 1984. Culture and the Development of Everyday Social Explanation.Journal of personality and social psychology46 (05 1984), 961–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.5.961

    work page doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.5.961 1984

  39. [39]

    Mischel and Y

    W. Mischel and Y. Shoda. 1995. A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure.Psychological Review102, 2 (April 1995), 246–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.102.2.246

    work page doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.2.246 1995

  40. [40]

    Marlei Pozzebon and Alain Pinsonneault. 2005. Challenges in Conducting Empirical Work Using Structuration Theory: Learning from IT Research. Organization Studies26, 9 (Sept. 2005), 1353–1376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605054621

    work page doi:10.1177/0170840605054621 2005

  41. [41]

    Przybylski, C

    Andrew K. Przybylski, C. Scott Rigby, and Richard M. Ryan. 2010. A Motivational Model of Video Game Engagement.Review of General Psychology 14, 2 (2010), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019440

    work page doi:10.1037/a0019440 2010

  42. [42]

    Roberts and Wendy F

    Brent W. Roberts and Wendy F. DelVecchio. 2000. The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies.Psychological Bulletin126, 1 (Jan. 2000), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.3

    work page doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.3 2000

  43. [43]

    Richard M Ryan and Edward L Deci. 2000. Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being.American Psychologist(2000)

    work page 2000

  44. [44]

    Richard M. Ryan, C. Scott Rigby, and Andrew Przybylski. 2006. The Motivational Pull of Video Games: A Self-Determination Theory Approach. Motivation and Emotion30, 4 (Dec. 2006), 344–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9051-8 Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC

    work page doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9051-8 2006

  45. [45]

    Anna Sapienza, Yilei Zeng, Alessandro Bessi, Kristina Lerman, and Emilio Ferrara. 2018. Individual performance in team-based online games.Royal Society Open Science5, 6 (Jun 2018), 180329. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180329

    work page doi:10.1098/rsos.180329 2018

  46. [46]

    Sercan Şengün, Joao M Santos, Joni Salminen, Soon-gyo Jung, and Bernard J Jansen. 2022. Do players communicate differently depending on the champion played? Exploring the Proteus effect in League of Legends.Technological Forecasting and Social Change177 (2022), 121556

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    Antonio Luis Cardoso Silva, Gisele Lobo Pappa, and Luiz Chaimowicz. 2018. Continuous outcome prediction of league of legends competitive matches using recurrent neural networks.SBC-proceedings of SBCGames(2018), 2179–2259

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    2017.Structuration theory

    Rob Stones. 2017.Structuration theory. Bloomsbury Publishing

    work page 2017

  49. [49]

    structure

    Sherman Tan. 2011. Understanding the “structure” and the “agency” debate in the social sciences.Moderator’s Note37 (2011), 37–50

    work page 2011

  50. [50]

    Triandis

    Harry C. Triandis. 1989. The Self and Social Behavior in Differing Cultural Contexts.Psychological Review96 (1989), 506–520. https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:18670762

    work page 1989

  51. [51]

    April Tyack and Elisa D. Mekler. 2020. Self-Determination Theory in HCI Games Research: Current Uses and Open Questions. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376723

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376723 2020

  52. [52]

    Carlos Valls-Serrano, Cristina de Francisco, Eduardo Caballero-López, and Alfonso Caracuel. 2022. Cognitive Flexibility and Decision Making Predicts Expertise in the MOBA Esport, League of Legends.SAGE Open12, 4 (Oct. 2022), 21582440221142728. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221142728 Publisher: SAGE Publications

    work page doi:10.1177/21582440221142728 2022

  53. [53]

    Dmitri Williams. 2010. The Mapping Principle, and a Research Framework for Virtual Worlds.Communication Theory20 (11 2010), 451 – 470. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01371.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01371.x 2010

  54. [54]

    Dmitri Williams, Nick Yee, and Scott E. Caplan. 2008. Who plays, how much, and why? Debunking the stereotypical gamer profile.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication13, 4 (July 2008), 993–1018. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00428.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00428.x 2008

  55. [55]

    Nick Yee and Jeremy Bailenson. 2007. The Proteus Effect: The Effect of Transformed Self-Representation on Behavior.Human Communication Research33, 3 (July 2007), 271–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00299.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00299.x 2007

  56. [56]

    Nick Yee, Nicolas Ducheneaut, Les Nelson, and Peter Likarish. 2011. Introverted elves & conscientious gnomes: the expression of personality in world of warcraft. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 753–762. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979052 Ch...

    work page doi:10.1145/1978942.1979052 2011