skip to main content
10.1145/3126858.3126886acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswebmediaConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Profiling Successful Team Behaviors in League of Legends

Published:17 October 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Despite the increasing popularity of electronic sports (eSports), there is still a scarcity of academic works exploring the playing behavior of teams. Understanding the features that help to discriminate between successful and unsuccessful teams would help teams improving their strategies, such as determine performance metrics to reach. In this paper, we identify and characterize team behavior patterns based on historical matches from the very popular eSpor League of Legends web API. By applying machine learning and statistical analysis, we clustered teams' performance and investigate for each cluster how and to what extent these features have an influence on teams' success and failure. Some clusters are more likely to have winning teams than others, the results of our study helped to discover the characteristics that are associated with this predisposition and allowed us to model performance metrics of successful and unsuccessful team profiles. At all, we found 7 profiles in which were categorized into four levels in terms of winning team proportion: very low, moderate, high and very high.

References

  1. Alexandra Buchan and Jacqui Taylor. 2016. A qualitative exploration of factors affecting group cohesion and team play in multiplayer online battle arenas (mobas). The Computer Games Journal 5, 1--2 (2016), 65--89.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Olivier Cavadenti, Victor Codocedo, Jean-François Boulicaut, and Mehdi Kaytoue. 2016. What Did I DoWrong in My MOBA Game? Mining Patterns Discriminating Deviant Behaviours. In Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA), 2016 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 662--671.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Anders Drachen, Matthew Yancey, John Maguire, Derrek Chu, Iris Yuhui Wang, Tobias Mahlmann, Matthias Schubert, and Diego Klabajan. 2014. Skill-based differences in spatio-temporal team behaviour in defence of the ancients 2 (dota 2). In Games media entertainment (GEM), 2014 IEEE. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Robert Edge. 2013. Predicting Player Churn in Multiplayer Games using Goal- Weighted Empowerment. Technical Report. Technical Report 13-024.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Christoph Eggert, Marc Herrlich, Jan Smeddinck, and Rainer Malaka. 2015. Classification of player roles in the team-based multi-player game dota 2. In International Conference on Entertainment Computing. Springer, 112--125. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Forbes 2017. New Report Details How eSports Is An Effective Engagement And Marketing Tool. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2015/02/25/ new-report-details-how-esports-is-an-effective-engagement-and-marketing-too.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. IFPI 2017. Global Music Report 2017. IFPI. http://www.ifpi.org/downloads/ GMR2017.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Filip Johansson and Jesper Wikström. 2015. Result Prediction by Mining Replays in Dota 2. (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. K Kalyanaraman. 2014. To win or not to win? A prediction model to determine the outcome of a DotA2 match. Technical Report. Technical report, University of California San Diego.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Young Bin Kim, Shin Jin Kang, Sang Hyeok Lee, Jang Young Jung, Hyeong Ryeol Kam, Jung Lee, Young Sun Kim, Joonsoo Lee, and Chang Hun Kim. 2015. Efficiently detecting outlying behavior in video-game players. PeerJ 3 (2015), e1502. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Nicholas Kinkade, L Jolla, and K Lim. 2015. DOTA 2 Win Prediction. Technical Report. tech. rep., University of California San Diego.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Trupti M Kodinariya and Prashant R Makwana. 2013. Review on determining number of Cluster in K-Means Clustering. International Journal 1, 6 (2013), 90--95.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. League of Legends 2017. Game Info. League of Legends. http://gameinfo.na. leagueoflegends.com/en/game-info.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. MPAA 2017. 2016 Theatrical Market Statistics Report. MPAA. http://www.mpaa. org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/MPAA-Theatrical-Market-Statistics-2016_ Final.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Julia Neidhardt, Yun Huang, and Noshir Contractor. 2015. Team vs. Team: Success Factors in a Multiplayer Online Battle Arena Game. In Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 2015. Academy of Management, 18725.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. NewZoo 2016. 2016 Global Games Market Report. NewZoo. https: //cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/700740/Reports/Newzoo_Free_2016_Global_Games_ Market_Report.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Hao Yi Ong, Sunil Deolalikar, and Mark Peng. 2015. Player Behavior and Optimal Team Composition for Online Multiplayer Games. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02230 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Nataliia Pobiedina, Julia Neidhardt, Maria del Carmen Calatrava Moreno, and Hannes Werthner. 2013. Ranking factors of team success. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 1185--1194. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Riot Games 2017. Our games. Riot Games. http://www.riotgames.com/our-games.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. François Rioult, Jean-Philippe Métivier, Boris Helleu, Nicolas Scelles, and Christophe Durand. 2014. Mining tracks of competitive video games. AASRI Procedia 8 (2014), 82--87. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Matthias Schubert, Anders Drachen, and Tobias Mahlmann. 2016. Esports analytics through encounter detection. In Proceedings of the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Superdata 2016. Worldwide digital games market: 2015 total. Superdata. http: //www.superdataresearch.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Chengwei Xiao, Jiaqi Ye, Rui Máximo Esteves, and Chunming Rong. 2015. Using Spearman's correlation coefficients for exploratory data analysis on big dataset. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Pu Yang, Brent E Harrison, and David L Roberts. 2014. Identifying patterns in combat that are predictive of success in MOBA games.. In FDG.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Mohammed J Zaki, Wagner Meira Jr, and Wagner Meira. 2014. Data mining and analysis: fundamental concepts and algorithms. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Profiling Successful Team Behaviors in League of Legends

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Other conferences
            WebMedia '17: Proceedings of the 23rd Brazillian Symposium on Multimedia and the Web
            October 2017
            522 pages
            ISBN:9781450350969
            DOI:10.1145/3126858

            Copyright © 2017 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 17 October 2017

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            WebMedia '17 Paper Acceptance Rate38of138submissions,28%Overall Acceptance Rate270of873submissions,31%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader