Toxicity is a prevalent concern within competitive multiplayer games, undermining player wellbeing, enjoyment, and retention. The games industry has attempted to mitigate toxicity by implementing ‘honor systems’—systems that are designed to acknowledge and reinforce prosocial player behaviors. Despite the prevalence of these systems in many popular online multiplayer games, it is unclear whether these systems provide sufficient incentives or work as intended. To answer this question, a thematic analysis was conducted investigating player perspectives towards League of Legends’ honor level system, and a set of heuristic guidelines were developed for the refinement of this system. This work identifies that limitations in honor systems design may inadvertently incentivize toxic behavior, and disincentivize prosocial play. Further, this work contributes avenues—guided by theory and player perspectives—towards improving positive engagement within the LoL honor system (i.e., consideration of rewards, transparency, and progression). By taking a player-centered approach, this work contributes valuable insights into the design of honor systems and provides developers with a set of heuristic guidelines useful for facilitating prosocial behaviors through LoL’s honor system.

Based on the themes identified from the reflexive thematic analysis, a set of six honor system design heuristics were created within three overarching categories (Effective Systems, Incentives, and System Design) embodying player perspectives of the current LoL honor level system. Within the Effective Systems category, there exist three heuristics representing honor system Appropriateness (A1-A3), Transparency (B1-B4), and Progression (C1-C3). In the Incentives category, one heuristic (Rewards) was created representing the types of rewards players would like to receive from the honor system (D1-D5). Lastly, the System Design category includes two heuristics representing Community Involvement (E1-E2) and Expansion (F1-F4).

Intended Method of Application:

This set of design heuristic guidelines is intended for use in expert evaluations at various design stages of future iterations of the LoL honor level system. These heuristics are meant to be used as a guideline rather than as a definitive checklist. Additionally, these design heuristics can be employed in a way that both confirms the presence of functions that facilitate effective honor system experiences, as well as to identify design problems and inform the design process. Furthermore, there are instances where these design heuristics are encouraged to be broken—e.g., extrinsic rewards should not be implemented to override intrinsically motivated behaviors as to avoid the overjustification effect.

Category 1: Effective System.

The Effective System heuristics (Table 1) consist of honor system elements that deal with the perceived efficacy of the system. As a general rule, the honor system should clearly articulate its goals to players and the rewards provided should match the efforts required from players.

Effective System heuristics can be mapped to several subgroups. Heuristics A1-A3 are related to the appropriateness of the honor system in terms of its rewards and ability to motivate positive behaviors among players. If rewards are not appropriately timed or matched to player efforts, players are less likely to be reinforced in displaying positive behaviors. Heuristics B1-B4 deal with the honor system’s transparency in articulating its goals and providing feedback to players regarding honor level progress. Players may become frustrated when it is not clear what constitutes honorable behaviors. Lastly, heuristics C1-C3 concern player progression within the honor level system. It is essential that honor progression is meaningfully tied to players’ efforts and consistent displays of positive behaviors.

Category 2: Incentives.

The Incentives heuristics (Table 2) reflect how players wish to be rewarded by the honor level system, including in-game and metagame rewards, as well as rewards of special privilege. Heuristics D1-D5 reflect various types of rewards and ways to incentivize positive behaviors among players. Once a reward is provided to incentivize behavior, it is crucial that rewards are consistently updated to maintain novelty—otherwise players may feel as though their efforts and position within the system are not recognized. Furthermore, rewards should feel exclusive so as to compel players to behave honorably during play.

Category 3: System Design.

The System Design heuristics (Table 3) are related to functionalities that should be incorporated into the honor level system. In general, players should feel a sense of agency in their ability to engage with the honor system in recognizing positive behaviors.

System Design heuristics can be categorized into two subgroups. Heuristics E1-E2 include honor system functionalities that involve the community in efforts to combat toxicity. Players should feel as though they have a way to meaningfully contribute towards bettering their community as to promote a cycle of positivity. Heuristics F1-F4 concern expansions that should be made to future iterations of the honor system to promote feelings of player agency in recognizing positive behaviors. Limiting functionalities in honoring players may result in players feeling unrecognized for their positive behaviors, inhibiting their trust in the system.