A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.

[thejeff]

At some point, pretty much anything you do, unless you're really in contention for winning yourself, is kingmaking.

If I help take down the leader, that's likely to throw the game to the next most powerful. If I don't, that leaves the leader winning.
Obviously this only really applies when the end is near. Taking an early leader down still leaves the field wide open.

If you're just talking about last gems and items when you're beaten, that seems a small part of kingmaking. I'd be more likely to give stuff to a surviving ally than to just a random enemy of my enemy.

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by thejeff

If you're just talking about last gems and items when you're beaten, that seems a small part of kingmaking. I'd be more likely to give stuff to a surviving ally than to just a random enemy of my enemy.

Unless you're talking about a team game or one that allows allied victory, they are only your ally as long as you have that temporary agreement to work together for mutual benefit, or at least not attack eachother. Once you're dead, they aren't your ally, so I don't see why you'd give them anything. Giving away stuff to make people come to your aid, that makes sense. Giving it to someone other than your attacker, or even giving it to your attacker himself (which happens generally to spite people who DIDN'T come to your aid) doesn't make sense to me other than as an attempt to influence the game post death, which ideally people wouldn't care about.