Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MMORPG End of The World (1703.01500)
MMORPG End of The World (1703.01500)
MMORPG End of The World (1703.01500)
●
●
●
●
600
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Period
●
●
●
●
●
●
0.75
●
●
●
●
●
●
WEEK_9_11
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
WEEK_4_8
●
Expenditure Ratio
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
WEEK_1_3
400
PK_Count
0.50
0.25
200
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Week
1.00 pandemic behavior, but rather a closer look at outlier players that
did resort to violence at the end.
How do those 334 players behave during the whole beta test?
0.75
Our interest here is whether they were “normal” players that turned
into murderers only at the end of the CBT or whether they exhibited
PK Ratio
0.50
abnormal behavior throughout the CBT. We cluster them based on
their in-game activities, obtaining four clusters. We use k-means
0.25 clustering algorithms and find the optimal k by using an elbow
method.
0.00
Figure 4 plots a histogram of the murders performed per cluster
0 20 40 60 divided into three intervals (early-, mid-, and end-times). Interest-
Days ingly, we see some differences in when the different clusters per-
formed their murders. Even though the mid-times period encom-
passes more weeks than the end-times period, cluster 4 committed
Figure 3: The relative frequency of murders over time. about the same number of murders in both periods and cluster 2
saw a dramatic increase in murders.
There are two main takeaways from this finding: 1) not all mur-
5.3 Player-vs-Player Combat derers are alike, but there do seem to be some archetypes they can
ArcheAge has a sophisticated PvP system to support a wide range be clustered under, and 2) clearly there are some players who, al-
of player actions. Intuitively, we might expect that once it is appar- though they did not quite go from pacifists to serial killers, did in
ent there are no consequences for actions, players might not feel fact show an increase in murderous tendencies as the end of the
the need to obey rules (e.g., ethics and social norms) and take part world drew near.
in anti-social behavior for fun. ArcheAge’s PvP system allows us
to examine this: PvP between players of the same character race 5.4 Player Communication
is classed as murder with a variety of in-game consequences and The second “M” in MMORPG stands for Multiplayer, and thus
penalties. the obvious draw to the genre is interacting with other players.
Ultimately, we are concerned with whether or not players aban- A big part of player interaction is social interaction via various
don whatever reservations they might have against murder. Figure 3 forms of communication. ArcheAge supports a variety of real-time
presents the relative frequency of regular PvP (battle kills allowed communication channels, many of which are tied to various action
in the ArcheAge) to murders over time. From the Figure, we see types. For example, expeditions, parties, and factions all have their
that murders are much more common at the beginning of the CBT, own chat channels.
decreasing in proportion to regular PvP events until about the last These chat logs enable us to explore a few questions related to
third of the timeline where murders start becoming more prevalent communication. We have seen initial evidence that game play re-
again. We suspect that the initial peak in murders is due to players lated behavior changes over time, but, does communication also
trying out the PvP system as well as victimizing other new play- change?
ers who might not expect such early aggression. The increasing To answer this question, we examine emotions conveyed in chat
trend at the end of the timeline is an indication that players might messages via sentiment analysis. While many methods for senti-
be reverting to more “savage” tendencies as well. As we expected, ment analysis have been proposed, we use the simple, yet power-
players are more likely to perform anti-social behavior when no ful, valence score [8]. A valence score is a measure of “happiness”
penalty will be imposed. and when applied to a corpus of text provides us with the sentiment
Next we examine how pervasive such anti-social behavior was. expressed in the text. As the ArcheAge CBT was populated almost
We extracted all players that committed at least one murder in the entirely with native Korean speakers, we used a Korean language
last two weeks of the beta period. We note that there were relatively valence score dictionary compiled in [5], which showed a slight,
few such murderers (334), and thus, the analysis does not represent but statistically significant positive bias in human language across
5.44 ● ● 6.1 The Measure of Irregularity of Player Be-
EXPEDITION
● ● ●
● ● ● ● ● ●
5.42 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
●
Our aim is to test whether an individual player shows behavioral
●
5.45
change at the end of the CBT. To this end, we first define the ir-
FACTION
● ●
●
●
5.40 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ● ●
● ●
● ●
5.35 ●
● ● ● ●
●
●
● ● ●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
● ● ● ● ● ●
●
● ● ● ●
●
●
regularity of player behavior as the behavioral difference between
●
5.30 ●
● the last day and the average day. In other words, we generate time-
FIND_PARTY
6.0 ●
●
●
5.6 ●
● ● ● ●
●
●
● ● ●
●
● ●
●
●
● ● ●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ● ● ●
●
●
● ●
● ●
●
● ●
series of the frequency of actions for each user and detect a positive
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
5.2
●
●
● ● ● ● ● ● ●
●
(higher frequency than average) or negative peak (lower frequency
5.450
5.425 ●
●
●
● ●
● ●
● ●
● ● ● ● ●
●
● ● ●
●
●
●
●
●
● ● ● ●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ● ● ●
than average) on the last day.
PARTY
● ●
●
●
● ●
● ●
● ● ●
●
●
● ●
●
●
Although there are sophisticated approaches to detect peaks at
Valenve Score
5.400 ● ●
●
●
5.375 ●
● ● ●
●
arbitrary time point of a given streams like [13], what we need is
●
5.8
5.7
much simpler. We are interested in whether or not the irregular be-
RAID
5.6
5.5 ●
●
●
● ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ●
● ● ● ●
havior is observed on the last day, and thus, we take the straightfor-
5.4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
●
● ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
5.3 ●
● ●
● ●
●
● ●
●
ward approach by using the mean and the standard deviation of the
● ● ●
5.43
●
●
● ● ● ●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
● ● ●
●
● ● ●
●
●
● ●
●
time-series prior to the last login day. More specifically, we define
SAY
● ●
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
5.41 ● ● ●
●
● ●
5.39 ●
●
● ●
● ● ●
● ● ● ● ●
●
●
a positive peak as the case where the frequency of a given action
5.6 ●
●
●
● ● ●
on the last login day of a player is greater than the sum of the mean
● ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ● ●
5.5 ● ● ● ● ●
frequency and two standard deviations of the action. Similarly, a
TRADE
● ● ● ● ● ● ●
● ●
● ● ● ●
●
●
● ● ● ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ●
5.4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
● ●
● ●
5.3 ● ● ●
●
negative peak is defined as the case where the frequency of a spe-
5.2 ●
5.7
●
cific action is less than the subtraction of two standard deviations
●
ZONE
5.4 ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
● ●
● ●
● ●
● ●
●
●
● ● ● ● ●
●
● ● ● ● ● ●
● ●
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
●
● ●
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
●
● ●
●
● ● ● from the mean frequency of the action on the last day.
5.1
●
More formally,
0 20 40 60
Days (
+ if |ai,Ω | > ai,0..(Ω−1) + 2 × σi,0..(Ω−1)
peak(c, ai ) =
− if |ai,Ω | < ai,0..(Ω−1) + 2 × σi,0..(Ω−1)
Figure 5: Valence scores over time by chat channel. Note dif-
fering y-scales. where c is the player, ai is the action i, and Ω is the last day. While
the height of the peak shows the strength of the irregularity, we first
focus on the sign of the peak only.
a variety of communication channels and languages. The valence For the correct interpretation of peaks occurring at the last day,
scale ranged from unpleasant (1), to neutral (5) and pleasant (9). we compare them with peaks that can be observed from the players
Figure 5 plots the valence scores over time for each public chat who leave the game earlier (i.e., voluntary churners). We denote
channel in ArcheAge.4 We plot the valence score for each day as the former with peaks for system-wide (S) reasons (i.e., the end of
well as a smoothed trend line. We first note that as found in [5], the beta test) and the latter with peaks for individual (I) reasons.
there is a slight positive bias across time; between 4.85 and 6.07 for The key question here is what are common and what are not com-
the entirety of our dataset. In particular, most of the valence scores mon behaviors between S and I players because the circumstances
hover right around 5.4, although there are some extreme outliers. that the players face are similar, but at the same time different. For
For example, the Raid channel saw a valence score of around 6.0 example, players are not likely to care about the consequences of
on one day, even though every other day was around 5.4. We spoke their actions on the last day because the next day does not come. In
to ArcheAge’s developers and were unable to find an in-game rea- particular, penalties for bad actions, e.g., decrease in “honor points”
son (e.g., a special event put on by the game company) for this or account suspension, are meaningless for both S and I players
to happen, but we intend to look deeper into these outliers in the since they will not be playing another day anyways.
future. Nevertheless, there exist differences between the circumstances
More interestingly, we see that there are clearly different patterns they face. It is whether others are also supposed to leave the game
expressed in the different chat channels over time. For example, at the same time and for the same reason. In other words, while
the Expedition channel has a clearly increasing “happiness,” while I users leave the game alone, by contrast, S users leave the game
the Party channel has an increasing valence score for the first few together with all other players. From this difference we posit that
weeks and then flattens out. In general, the “social” channels (Ex- system-wide impact could be observed from S users but not from I
pedition, Party, and Raid) see no decrease in valence as the end users. This means that some of the behavioral changes derived by
of the beta test approaches. Although players do have somewhat shared emotions among the players might be observed from S but
changing sentiment, it is not sadness as the world reaches its end. not I.
Also, there might be some differences between the attitude of
the S and I users towards the game. Playing the game until the end
6. INDIVIDUAL PLAYER-LEVEL BEHAV- of the beta test (S users) shows players’ devotion to the game. By
IORAL CHANGE contrast, leaving the game during the beta test (I users) indicates
that players lost interest. Losing interest in the game also connects
So far we have examined aggregated dynamics from the system-
to losing loyalty to the game and might lead to anti-social behavior.
wide view and found that global-scale pandemic behavior does not
We filter out players that logged in less than 5 days (not neces-
seem to emerge. In this section, we focus on each individual player
sarily consecutive) to exclude unstable one-time playing characters
to see whether there is a noticeable behavioral change that can be
from our analysis. This filtering criterion leaves 22,945 players,
hidden when viewed in aggregate.
28.27% of all players created during the 4th CBT. Among these rel-
atively long-lived (again, > 5 login days) players, we obtain 27,716
4
We do not have the data of private channels. peak(c, ai ) for 6,242 I players and 15,430 peak(c, ai ) for 3,150
Normalized Peak Frequency
1.0
Character Type INDIVIDUAL SYSTEM
0.5
0.0
−0.5
m fr fr damng l
us ho h e mien ien a e
e w/ st on s
/o b a y
ite m e itelabor poon
iteein itemoffe )
m ma re at vel cel
m for g r)
oi ite ctio t
p ge le ion ce
qu st withlega ge
t c ep aw )
id de an e
w leg ge
pr sh urr rawe)
sk sh ur n t s
en triesit
tra ve
ch ha ter lognge
ch cte ter atio t
ch ar r d de n
ex ara acte ele ath
e l n
in pe pe on g in
ta iti it a ut
ex exp pe n a in e el
nc ion o ta on
rie dit tion ep ati e
fa t chraw e
in s n o d d ge
te ac ou us st th nt ha n
m it m l re vel ge
ge ga n
nt m n
al ns n ng
at me le an n
ot e s re ll crec p
r P ch cq ec el
e a ma l han se
in em ail cei up
m tionalla ing
ot he kil su a all
te g ty cc ita ile
ha n r ita ta n
q om tan al
q ue pl ce
es t g ailu n
ra rai prove ue
id d g p
ai ati atio s
d on n
m id ita ra r disb try
sh uct de r tio l
op du og ion
n
wa reh U ave me e
ho se it te eca t
us it em ep ll
zotem de pply
ha ot ce ita ile
e
sh pro pr uct rn
ll a a
ec a
le in
r p du en
a c e u
r n
es acc dr te
e em a or
( in
ad e r in cti res
re cti res
cr cre res
w la all tr
in d iz
e w rg nc
ra e ( ch anc
pe ct r tio
at c tio
pe e di cc vit xil
s g
at te c e u
ng ing pt tio
c g r e e ad
r c ai inv ep tio
qu uesst f etio
t i r
in ch tio
sl rceang
nc
rty rre P.
ex tio on ion nc
he r l a rr nc
c a
ar ra cr o
vi d d c o
s d t
ne re po
as m r a nv ex
r c lo ac v x
ex a de o
n u t n
n ex ex diti r lo og
c u
o ti
e n
ra ti s in ru o c n
io d g c on y n
st i se vi
as ite tio id ai a
r c i
a
c c al a
p o
h
l
i e
ar rm c
d
chbno ility
e
a
fo
n
e
n
re ou CC
r
a ab
t r
od ip
n o in on
i
c
a
pa pa inv p
e
o
ic
ite te
m
o
la
n
ite
id ra inv
m
ga
at m
ip
u
wa
m
rty
d
g
sh
tio
i
rty rt
ra
pa
di
m
pe
ho
ra
ex
in
Action
Figure 6: Normalized frequency of positive/negative peaks for each type of actions at the last day of the player’s “life.” Negative peak
frequency is shown on the negative y-axis. INDIVIDUAL players stopped playing before the CBT ended, while SYSTEM players
stayed until the end.
S players. Among them, 40.93% of players show irregular behav- longer. Raid withdrawal indicates that raiding parties were broken
ior on their last login day. In other words, four out of ten players up when the CBT ends.
behave irregularly on their last login day no matter whether leaving Among the top positive peaks of the I users, we find two kinds
the game due to systemic or personal reasons. This confirms our of actions that are not observed from the S users: character dele-
original intuition about the pervasiveness of unusual behavior on tion and PK. As creating multiple characters is allowed for a single
the last day. account, it is not essential to delete characters when leaving the
Figure 6 presents the number of players (either I or S) that show game. Thus, it is reasonable to understand character deletion as in-
positive and negative peaks on their last login day for each action tentional behavior for one’s own reasons. We suppose that there is
normalized to [0, 1] and [−1, 0], respectively. From the figure, we user intent to wipe out one’s characters when they leave, perhaps
observe many differences between I and S players. Both I and related to growing privacy concerns online.
S players show positive peaks for mail sending and receiving. In PK observed as a positive peak is more interesting. ArcheAge
detail, I players have more positive peaks for mail sending than re- churners lose their reservations and show online disinhibition just
ceiving, but S characters show more receiving than sending. Play- before they leave the game. Even though PK is not explicitly banned
ers who leave on purpose behave differently compared to players by gameplay mechanics, it is fundamentally harmful to other play-
who leave due to the system end. ers and involves risks such as penalty or item loss upon death. Sev-
We then rank each action by its likelihood to show positive peaks eral studies have examined the underlying conditions that catalyze
and negative peaks. Considering the relatively small sample size of toxic behavior [15], and leaving the game might very well be one
ArcheAge players compared to million-player scale MMORPGs, more condition that can trigger toxic behavior. It is worth noting
we use the lower bound of the Wilson score confidence interval for that by contrast, PK is not likely to appear (48th rank) for players
a Bernoulli parameter [20] instead of a simple ranking by the exact who stayed until the end.
number of positive and negative peaks. The method to compute the Most of the top negative peaks in Table 2 are common between
Wilson score is as follows: the two sets of players. The easily recognizable trend is that play-
s ers do not usually invest their time in making their characters better
2 2 2
zα/2 2
[p̂(1 − p̂) + zα/2 /4n] zα/2 or stronger (e.g., level up, ability change, experience point change,
W = (p̂ + − zα/2 )/(1 + ) quest accept, question complete, and game money change) once
2n n 2
the end of the world approaches. Players typically perform these
where p̂ is the proportion of positive peaks to negative peaks, n actions because of their expected outcome in the future rather than
2 an inherent enjoyment of the actions themselves. Therefore, at the
is the number of peaks, and zα/2 is the the (1-α/2) quantile of
the normal distribution. We use zα/2 2
= 1.96 for a 95% confidence end of the beta test, they cease performing them. This is in con-
level. tradiction to the adage, “Even if I knew that tomorrow the world
Table 2 shows the top 10 actions with positive peaks (the highest would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree.” by Mar-
W ) and negative peaks (the lowest W ) for S players and I players. tin Luther ; people do not behave like that, and the counter-factual
From the top positive peaks of the S players, we find an increase optimistic view might be why the adage resonated.
in social interaction, such as exchanging mails, party creation and
invitation, and item exchange. The significant increment of item 6.2 Association of Peaks
production shows that players willingly accept the risk of produc- While Table 2 shows which action shows positive or negative
tion failure at their last login days because the risk is not a risk any peaks, players actually can do multiple actions. Then, how do such
SYSTEM INDIVIDUAL
Rank Positive Peak Negative Peak Positive Peak Negative Peak
1 mail receive level up mail send level up
2 mail send ability change mail receive ability change
3 honor point change expedition cancel character deletion quest completion
4 item production quest completion honor point change quest acceptance
5 item exchange (offer) quest acceptance item production experience point change
6 item exchange (gain) expedition organize PK game money change
7 raid withdrawal experience point change mate item installation expedition exile
8 mate item installation expedition exile item exchange (offer) expedition cancel
9 party invitation item deletion mate item installation cancel item gain
10 party creation game money change item exchange (gain) mate recall cancel
Table 2: Top 10 positive and negative peaks for SYSTEM and INDIVIDUAL users.
peaks associate with each other? To answer this question, we bor- Interestingly, we find no communities containing positive peaks
row some tools from network science and construct a network of and negative peaks at the same time in either network. In addition,
peaks and cluster the peaks into communities. this tendency, different signs of peaks never associated with each
More formally, we build a graph G(V, E) where each vertex is a other, is confirmed by observing no direct edges between different
pair of action and peak sign. I.e., vai ,sign ∈ V . For each vertex vi , signs of peaks in G0I and G0S . I.e., players do not change their
we define cvi as the set of players that have the corresponding peak typical behavior in two different ways at the same time.
vi . Next, we connect two vertices by an edge if and only if there Also, communities from the two networks are not well over-
are any players in common: lapped, as we observed in Figure 7. This finding is more evidence
( that S players and I players behave differently at their last login
1 if cvi ∩ cvj 6= ∅ days. To quantitatively measure the similarity (or difference) be-
ei,j =
0 otherwise tween the two sets of communities, for each community in G0S , we
compute the Jaccard similarity coefficient with every community
Naturally, we weigh each edge with the number of common play- identified in G0I . Then we pick the community with the maximum
ers belonging to each vertex: Jaccard coefficient as a corresponding community for the specific
wi,j = |cvi ∩ cvj | community in G0S . The average and the median of the computed
Jaccard coefficient are 0.537 and 0.500, respectively. We note that
We note that vertices without edges (i.e., isolated vertices) are in computing Jaccard similarity, we focus only on vertices (peaks)
excluded from the graph. We also prune relatively unimportant that are common in both networks because both networks have a
edges based on their weights by backbone extraction [18]. We set different number of vertices.
statistical significance level as 95%. In pruning, the importance of
a single edge can be measured differently depending on which of its
vertices you measure from. Thus, to better understand associations 6.3 Changes in Player Communication
of peaks, we transform a single undirected edge into two reciprocal In the system-wide view, we find that the sentiment of player chat
directed edges and prune them according to the statistical frame- slightly changes over time as in Figure 5. For our last experiment,
work. In the remaining text, G0 denotes the pruned G. we examine how an individual’s chat behavior changes when their
We investigate two weighted directed networks, G0S and G0I , playing reaches an end. We again used valence score to capture
built from S users and I users, respectively, which allows us to sentiment.
compare peak associations from the two group of users. We find Since the range of valence score that each player uses is different,
that G0I consists of fewer vertices than G0S . It has 79 vertices and comparing the average of the scores for all players during typical
464 edges, but G0S has 103 vertices and 498 edges. The difference days and at the last day makes the behavioral change of each player
mainly comes from negative peaks. Only four negative peaks (level average out. For example, the score of one user changes from 3
up (-), ability change (-), mate recall (-), and mate recall cancel (-)) to 7 and that of the other user changes from 7 to 3. In this case,
are included in G0I , although 28 negative peaks are in G0S . the average score does not change but stays at 5, even though each
A large proportion of positive peaks in G0I means that players user shows substantial behavioral change. To address this issue, we
do more of those actions together at their last login day rather than track the change of every player. I.e., +4 and -4 for the two users in
doing them less, especially when they decide to leave the game. the above example.
More importantly, those positive peaks are well connected to each For each player, we then subtract the average valence score of
other like a clique. typical days from that of the last day and denote it by ∆. Fig-
Intuitively, actions of a similar category are likely to synchro- ure 8 shows a box-plot distribution of the ∆ for the S users and I
nize. In other words, if one user does more leveling up, then the users. Although medians of the two groups are almost the same (S:
user is likely to do other activities related to making his character −0.01, and I: 0.01), we can see that distribution of I users is much
stronger. To support our intuition with data, we apply the Louvain wider. In other words, users show more change in chat sentiment
method [2], a widely-used modularity-based community detection when they leave the game of their own volition than when the beta
algorithm, to identify densely connected local groups of peaks. test ends. Also, we have found a statistically significant effect of a
Figure 7 shows the communities derived from the peak networks group (I or S) on the sentiment (p < 0.05).
of G0I and G0S . From this plot we make several observations. We We break down the change of valence score based on players’
find 12 communities on G0S and 15 communities on G0I . Low link typical valence score in Figure 9. We bin them by the rounded value
density, defined as |E|/{|V |(|V | − 1)}, of G0S (0.047) results in of the average valence score for typical days and then show the
fewer communities, although the pruned network has more vertices distributions as a box-plot. By break down, an interesting pattern
than G0I (0.075). that is veiled in Figure 9 emerges; ∆ is positive when the sentiment
quest acceptance (-) ability change (-)
interaction doodade w/o labor point
game(-) money change (-) ship destruction (+)
abnormal log out (+)
expedition invitation acceptance (+) experience point change (-) level up (-)
item use (+)
mate recall cancel (-)
zone entrance (-) mate recall (-) labor point change (-)
abnormal log out (+) quest completion (-) quest progress (+) ship production progress (+)
party invitation acceptance (+) character log in (+) character log out (+)
character log in (+) UCC item apply (+)
level up (-)
ability change (-) interaction doodade w/ labor point (-) ship production try (+)
character log out (+) item deletion (-) skill reinforcement (+)
ship destruction (+) item gain (-) party invitation try (+) warehouse item retrieve (+)
quest acceptance (+) friend deletion (+) party creation (+) slave recall (+)expedition exile (+)
skill level change (-)
raid creation try (+) ship production try (+) fall damage (+)
character creation (+) quest progress (-)item use (-) mate item installation cancel (+) mate recall cancel (+)
raid withdrawal (+) skill initialization (+)
mate item installation (+) shop repurchase (+)
mate skill acquisition (+) honor point change (+)
resurrection (+) item exchange(gain) (+) teleport (+) experience point change (+)
ship production progress (+)
raid creation (+) quest completion (+) game money change (+) resurrection (+)
slave recall (+) raid exile (+)
shop repurchase (+) expedition invitation (+) character log in (-) party withdrawal (+) party master change (delegate) (+)
character mate
log out (-) cancel (-)
recall item gain (+) interaction doodade w/ labor point (+)
character deletion (+) character death (+) mate item installation cancel (+)
abnormal log out (-) mail receiving (+) skill level change (+)
raid invitation acceptance (+) honor point change (+)
other PC resurrection (+) skill acquisition (+) other PC resurrection (+)
quest progress (+) mate recall (+)
item deletion (+) mate level up (+) party invitation (+)
skill reinforcement (-) item exchange(offer) (+) item exchange(gain) (+)
item production (+)raid master change (delegate) (+) character creation (+) interaction doodade w/o labor point (+)
item use (+)
return (+) raid withdrawal (+)
labor point change (+)
game money change (+) character death (+)
raid invitation (+) skill acquisition (+) other PC resurrection (-) housing construction try (+) raid master change (delegate) (+)
mail sending (+) raid exile (+) item production (+)
housing authority setting (+) item exchange(offer) (+)
interaction doodade w/o labor point (+) character deletion (+)
character death (-) warehouse item deposit (+)
item gain (+) mate item installation (+)
mate recall cancel (+) friend add (+) return (+)
interaction doodade w/ labor point (+) return (-) party invitation try (+) expedition withdrawal (+)
raid creation try (+) mate level up (+)
mate recall (+) mail receiving (+) mate recall (-) zone entrance (+)
warehouse item retrieve (+)
party invitation (+) expedition invitation acceptance (+) item deletion (+)
experience point change (+) housing construction progress (+) housing authority setting (+)
labor point change (+) skill level change (+)
party creation (+) mate skill acquisition (+)
housing interior installation (+) raid invitation (+)
housing construction try (+)
party withdrawal (+) raid invitation acceptance (+)
party invitation acceptance (+)
skill reinforcement (+) expedition invitation (+) quest give up (+)
skill initialization (+) resurrection (-)
skill acquisition (-) mail sending (+)
housing interior installation (+) raid creation (+)
warehouse item deposit (+) housing construction progress (+)
Figure 7: Backbone networks of peaks for users until the system ends (left) and users who personally leave before (right).
INDIVIDUAL SYSTEM
SYSTEM ● ● ● ● ●● ●
●
●●● ●
●
●●●●
● ● ● ●●● ●
●
●●●●●
●●
●●
●●●
●
●●●
●●●
●●
●●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●●
●●●
●●
●●●
●
●
●●●
●●
●● ●●
●●
●
●●
●●●
●●
●●
●
●●●●
●
●●●
●●●
●
●●●●● ●
●
●
●●●●
●
●●●●
●●
● ●●
●
●●●●●
●
●●● ●
●●●● ● ● ● ● ●
●
∆Valence (Last day − Typical days)
2 ●
●
●
● ●
● ●
● ●
●
●
● ● ●
●
● ●
●
●
●
INDIVIDUAL ●● ● ● ●
● ● ●●
● ●●●●
●●
●●
●●●
● ●● ●
●●
●●
●● ●
●
●●
●●●
●
●●●●
●●
●●●●
●
●●
●
●●
●
●●
●●
●
●●
●
●●
●●
●●
●●●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●●
● ●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●●●
●●
●
●●●
●
●●
●●●
●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●
●●
●●
●●
●
●●
●●●● ●
●
●●●●● ●●
●●
● ●● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
● ● ●
●
● ● ●
● ●
●
●
● ●
● ● ●
● ●
1 ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
● ●
●
● ●
●
●
● ●
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2
∆Valence (Last day − Typical days)
●
typical days. −1 ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ● ● ●
● ● ●
●
● ●
● ●
●
● ●
● ●
●
● ● ●
● ● ● ●
● ● ● ●
●
● ●
● ● ●
● ●
● ● ●
● ● ●
● ●
● ●
−2 ●
●
●
●
●
●
of typical days is positive (> 5). It means that the sentiment of the −3
●
●
●
●