The opaqueness of moderation systems can leave offenders of toxic behaviour disaffected and without recourse for change. We examined whether explainability, the means by which an automated system explains its decisions, can improve player responses to automated moderation decisions within the context of multiplayer games. Through a mixed methods experiment we evaluated players' perceptions of six explanations of an automated temporary ban decision. Despite finding only minor benefits to explainable AI methods over the best current explanation used in practice, we found that justification, i.e. providing evidence within an explanation, is fundamental for improving players' perceived fairness and emotional response to moderation. We contextualise these results through a reflexive thematic analysis in which we identify four themes that reflect players' competing understandings of both explainability and moderation. We conclude by proposing four design implications for researchers and developers to consider when designing explainability for future community management systems.
"Queue dodging'' in League of Legends---the act of leaving a match during Champion Select---is characterised as problematic behaviour that increases lobby wait times, reduces the quality of matchmaking, and results in penalties for players. Although game companies try to eliminate queue dodging, it persists, raising the question of what motivates players to continue dodging in spite of repercussions. Through a thematic analysis of 2,932 Reddit posts and comments, we highlight four main motivations for dodging: 1) Avoiding toxic teammates, 2) Evading unfavourable matchups, 3) Exploiting system mechanics, and 4) Reacting to external circumstances. Our findings suggest that queue dodging is as likely to be a proactive strategy players use to avoid toxicity as an aggressive strategy to enact it. We discuss implications for the design of game systems that would support players to anticipate and avoid negative experiences while still preventing queue dodging as a toxic act.
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
Frustration in games can have negative consequences for both players and those around them. Despite these effects, methods for supporting frustration management in hectic gameplay are scarce. In this paper, we present Frustration Buddy, a novel tangible intervention system aimed at managing frustration during play. Frustration Buddy leverages distraction and soothing techniques to help players control their emotions. Our paper provides an artifact contribution, complemented by exploratory findings from semi-structured interviews with nine participants on frustration in games, how they manage it, and their opinions on Frustration Buddy’s design and applicability in their gaming environments. The results suggest participants were open to the idea of a device supporting frustration management and that the use of a tangible device like a stress ball was well-received. We provide insights on how to design such a device based on our design decisions and the preferences expressed by the gamers in our interviews.
Toxic behavior remains an urgent challenge in online multiplayer games, but less is known about how toxicity compares across genres and which elements are associated with it in a cross-genre sample. To address these gaps, we conducted an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study. Study 1 compared seven genres (MOBA, Battle Royale, Shooter, MMORPG, Sports, Fighting, Sandbox) among players (N = 243). It found that toxic behavior was more prevalent in competitive, team-based genres and correlated positively with the game elements leaderboards and levels, but negatively with quests. Study 2 (N = 72), a follow-up study with participants from Study 1, invited via Prolific IDs and quotas by genre, used reflexive thematic analysis to construct six cultural dilemmas that redefine toxic behavior as a negotiated practice. \rev{By integrating statistical mapping and cultural interpretation, we synthesize four actionable design patterns: Voluntary Interdependence, Normalize Respect, Balance Competition, and Shared Goals. We contribute (1) a cross-genre map of toxic behavior, (2) statistical associations between specific game elements and toxicity, and (3) four actionable design patterns for healthier multiplayer communities.
Toxic behavior in Multiplayer Online Battle Arena (MOBA) games has become a major issue. While previous studies have examined factors influencing toxic behavior, few have captured the cognitive and emotional states of the aggressors at the point of emergence of toxic behavior, or traced its evolution across an entire match. To fill the gap, we conducted replay-based semi-structured interviews with 18 players who recently initiated toxic behavior during matches. With adapted retrospective think-aloud protocols and players' emotional journey maps, we collected their subjective perceptions and dynamic changes of emotion. Through thematic analysis, we identified a multi-dimensional criterion for evaluating toxicity severity and a three-layer cognition–emotion association structure, and described recurring persistent and single-instance patterns of toxic behavior observed in our matches. Based on our findings, we contribute to understanding the internal evolution of player toxicity and discuss implications for preventive intervention strategies and designs aiming at mitigating toxic behavior
Toxic behavior is a problem in online gaming platforms such as League of Legends (LoL), undermining player well-being and fairness. Platforms increasingly optimize “engagement” without distinguishing between positive and negative participation. Drawing on dual-process theory, we ask when hostile interactions can become economically productive. In an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study with LoL players, Study 1 (N = 430) models how reflective, System~2 brand bonds (i.e., brand personality, brand involvement, brand engagement) and negatively valenced, System~1 reactive responses (self-reported toxic behavior) relate to in-game spending. Study 2 (N = 80) uses reflexive thematic analysis to show how players interpret, repair, and channel frustration and hostility through cosmetics, events, and progression systems. Across studies, toxic behavior is positively associated with self-reported purchases and partially transmits the association between reflective brand attachments and spending. We contribute a dual-pathways account of how governance and monetization infrastructures can fold harmful engagement into value extraction, and we outline critical design provocations for centrally governed, highly monetized platforms.