发表机构
Indiana University Bloomington（印第安纳大学布卢明顿分校）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本研究分析2016-2025年英雄联盟世界赛数据，发现赛前补丁对队伍造成不均衡影响，削弱集中于热门英雄，增强暴露与成绩相关但因果不确定，主张通过提前承诺、披露与独立审查加强规则制定问责。
AI 中文摘要
运营英雄联盟世界锦标赛（Worlds）的拳头游戏，同时也会在每届锦标赛前不久对游戏进行改动。这种权力集中引发了一个治理问题：谁来审视后期规则变更的收益与负担是如何分配的？我们考察了2016年至2025年间的全部十届锦标赛，结合了1,097场比赛、215个队伍年数据，并对40个补丁中的1,090项英雄改动进行了LLM编码。平均而言，一支队伍此前选用的英雄中有33%在它于世界赛前未曾参与过的补丁中遭到净削弱，8%则获得净增强。在一年内，受影响最大与最小队伍之间的中位数差距，在遭削弱英雄方面为23个百分点，在获增强英雄方面为12个百分点。削弱主要落在最具争议性的英雄上，而增强则主要落在争议较少的英雄上，这与拳头游戏公布的平衡准则所预期的一致。因此，集中于主流版本的英雄池具有更大的负面净暴露，甚至一年内四大主要赛区冠军之间的净暴露差异，与随机抽取的四支队伍的差异大致相当。更高的增强暴露与对手对增强英雄的额外禁用相关联，尽管其影响大小取决于模型。在四分之一决赛队伍中，每年增强暴露最高的队伍打入了十届决赛中的六届，并赢得了四个冠军。净暴露最负面的队伍则打入了两届决赛并赢得一个冠军。这些探索性描述识别的是不平等暴露，而非因果性的得或失。净暴露与获胜之间的关联仍不确定，为每标准差+1.3个百分点，95%置信区间为-0.9至+3.7。我们认为，对后期规则制定的审查不应依赖于证明补丁改变了谁赢得了世界赛。更早的补丁承诺、队伍层面的影响披露、独立审查以及正式的决策质疑机会，将使发行商的权力更加负责。
英文摘要
Riot Games, which runs the League of Legends World Championship (Worlds), also changes the game shortly before each tournament. This concentration of authority raises a governance question: Who scrutinizes how the benefits and burdens of late rule changes are distributed? We examine all ten championships from 2016 to 2025, combining 1,097 games, 215 team-years, and LLM coding of 1,090 champion changes across 40 patches. On average, 33% of a team's prior picks were on champions with net nerfs in the patches it had not played before Worlds, and 8% were on champions with net buffs. Within a year, the median gap between the most and least affected teams was 23 percentage points for nerfed picks and 12 for buffed picks. Nerfs fell mainly on the most-contested champions and buffs on less-contested ones, as Riot's published balancing criteria anticipate. Pools concentrated on the prevailing meta therefore had more negative net exposure, and even the winners of a year's four major regional leagues differed in net exposure about as much as four randomly drawn teams. Higher buff exposure was associated with additional opponent bans on buffed champions, although its size depends on the model. Among quarterfinalists, the most buff-exposed team of each year reached six of ten finals and won four titles. The team with the most negative net exposure reached two finals and won one. These exploratory descriptions identify unequal exposure, not causal gains or losses. The association between net exposure and winning remains uncertain, at +1.3 percentage points per standard deviation with a 95% interval from -0.9 to +3.7. We argue that scrutiny of late rulemaking should not depend on proving that a patch changed who won Worlds. Earlier patch commitments, team-level impact disclosure, independent review, and a formal opportunity to challenge decisions would make publisher authority more accountable.
Comments29 pages, 3 figures, 11 tables
