Personalized game generation requires inferring a player's abilities and behavioral style from how they play. Large language models have made this inference more attainable than ever: an LLM can read a raw gameplay transcript and produce a fluent, plausible profile of the player. Plausible, however, is not verified, and verification is precisely what the field lacks: latent traits are unobservable; questionnaires provide noisy proxies and become circular when self-reports are used to validate behavior-based inference; and behavior itself is ambiguous without context -- a player who never collects an item may not want it, or may never have had the chance. We address both problems. First, we construct a synthetic player population whose traits are ground truth by construction: each trait is an explicit bot parameter, accepted only after controlled manipulation produces consistent, trait-specific behavioral change. Unlike prior parameter-recovery work that inverts a known decision model, our benchmark evaluates policy-agnostic inference from behavioral transcripts alone. Second, we introduce an opportunity-aware decision-moment representation that disentangles preference from the chance to express it; ablating it selectively degrades opportunity-dependent traits. On this benchmark, few-shot LLM inference outperforms embedding- and rule-based baselines on most traits, though feature-based supervised regressors remain stronger overall. Finally, we close the loop: inferred profiles drive difficulty adaptation, evaluated against ground-truth references and mismatched-profile controls, and an exploratory human study examines whether these findings transfer to real players.
Accurately modeling and understanding player experience is crucial for designing engaging puzzle games. To achieve this, a common approach involves collecting diverse user data to train predictive playtesting models that mimic player behavior. However, existing data-driven methods often lack the ability to capture the full range of player strategies and require extensive feature engineering and network architecture modeling. This limitation becomes particularly evident when new game mechanics or features are introduced, which necessitate continual adjustments to the models. To addrss these challenges, we propose a more generalized representation that reduces - or even eliminates - the need for ongoing feature-engineering maintenance. Specifically, we investigate two general-purpose network architectures: (a) a transformer-based model (BERT) and (b) a graph attention model (GAT), both of which are designed to effectively capture the relational structure of Candy Crush Saga (CCS) game boards. Our experiments compare these approaches to Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) baselines, revealing better performance on challenging board configurations and underscoring the benefits of our generalizable representation.
In competitive games, players frequently switch strategies after losing streaks, yet our analysis of 926,334 match records from 34,619 Clash Royale players reveals a counterintuitive pattern: switching frequency is inversely associated with the win rate, with effects that vary substantially across players and situational contexts. We attribute this to a limitation common in many prior recommendation systems, which evaluate strategies by expected quality while overlooking the behavioral cost of switching and individual differences in switching propensity. We refer to this implicit premise as the Zero Switching Cost Assumption. To address this, we reformulate strategy recommendation as a transition-level decision problem and instantiate it as TQP (Transition Quality Predictor), a three-stage pipeline structured as Who -> When -> What. PersonaGate suppresses recommendations for players whose strategic consistency is empirically associated with superior outcomes. TimingGate identifies moments when switching is likely to yield a net benefit over staying, using a subtype- and state-matched baseline to control for natural win-rate recovery. ScoreFusion ranks candidate strategies by combining an adoptability signal with predicted transition quality (delta WR). We further introduce SwitchGap, an evaluation metric that measures a policy's discriminative quality without treating observed player choices as optimal ground truth. This property is particularly important because the most frequent switchers record the lowest win rates. The full pipeline achieves a SwitchGap of +10.4 percentage points at a recommendation rate of 5.4%, and loss-triggered switchers, despite being the lowest-performing group, benefit the most from subtype-conditioned guidance.