CS Jailbreak Deathcrate should be a random/luck game

nep

nep

Poster
=(e)=
Joined
Apr 2, 2022
Messages
106
I personally think that TNT crate and Deathcrate should be classified as a random game in the rules, the same way games like 4 Corners are. Even if CTs can usually eliminate half or more of the prisoners, the outcome still isn’t skill dependent for the players, and is down to chance. Feel free to tell me I have a skill issue for losing at deathcrate. I know.

Because of that, I don’t think it should be allowed as a first or second game. Games where prisoners actually have agency or can influence the outcome through skill should be the games played first, and Deathcrate doesn’t really provide that in the same way.

Making it count as a random game would keep it consistent with how other RNG-based games are already handled in the rules.

Thank u. Mreow.
 
The metric that we use in determining whether a game is luck-based or skill-based is a test of whether a conscious, logical decision or input from the player can positively influence the results of the game.

In the case of 4 corners, there is no conscious, logical decision that the player can make that will influence the results -- you pick a corner, and you either live or die. However, in the case of deathcrate, you are continually able to make inputs (movements) that will influence your chances at success (in the form of calculating the trajectory and likely physics of the crate and avoiding those high-risk locations), which inherently makes deathcrate a skill-based game.

For a game to be considered luck-based, it must be 100% luck-based, in the sense that there is absolutely nothing a player can do to influence the results. Deathcrate does not reach this bar and is hence considered a skill-based game.
 
SoflySans said:
explain why i've never survived death crate then >:( i have a 100% fail rate
Click to expand...
In the context of performance evaluation within competitive or skill-based environments, the observed disparity in outcomes may be attributed to a quantifiable divergence in operational proficiency, technical aptitude, or domain-specific competency between the involved parties. This phenomenon is not merely a reflection of stochastic variance, but rather an emergent property of differential mastery over the requisite cognitive, motor, or strategic frameworks governing the task at hand. Such discrepancies often manifest as asymmetries in execution precision, decision-making latency, or adaptive capacity under dynamic conditions, thereby yielding a measurable performance gradient that aligns with the relative calibration of each participant's skill repertoire. Consequently, any perceived bias or systemic irregularity in the evaluated framework is more parsimoniously explained as a function of this underlying proficiency differential.
 
I don’t really agree that a game has to be 100% luck-based to qualify as random in practice.

The issue with Deathcrate is that, while movement technically exists, the outcome is still overwhelmingly determined by unpredictable crate physics, timing variance, and player positioning relative to others. The “skill expression” is extremely limited compared to games where player input consistently determines the outcome.

You can absolutely improve your odds a bit in Deathcrate, but you can also die instantly to factors outside your control regardless of your decisions. That’s much closer to the spirit of games like 4 Corners than it is to other games.

At the very least, I think it fits the intent behind random game restrictions: avoiding low-agency elimination games early in the round.
 
blank_dvth blank_dvth

How about a proposal...

If you can survive 2 full minutes in Death Crate on jb spy v spy on SKILL ALONE, then we drop this matter entirely and we can call it a Skill Based game.

;)

EDIT: We'll even give you 3 attempts.
 
ducks said:
How about a proposal...

If you can survive 2 full minutes in Death Crate on jb spy v spy on SKILL ALONE, then we drop this matter entirely and we can call it a Skill Based game.
Click to expand...
Once again, that's not the metric. A game has to be 100% luck to be considered luck-based. You are assuming the reverse, that a game has to be 100% skill to not be considered luck-based, which is absolutely not the case.

If you want to perform a test, then it's extremely simple; I will do two attempts at Deathcrate (run a few times to rule out statistical outliers): one in which I will intentionally try to fail, and one in which I'm trying to survive. If there is any difference between these two methodologies (which there will be, as intentionally setting out to fail will mean running directly into the crate), then it's not luck-based.

Using that same test against a true luck-based game (e.g. roulette, 4 corners, etc.) will have absolutely no difference. There's nothing you can do to influence the game (whether to fail or to succeed), and that (and only that) is the point that it would be considered luck-based.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saf
ducks said:
blank_dvth blank_dvth

How about a proposal...

If you can survive 2 full minutes in Death Crate on jb spy v spy on SKILL ALONE, then we drop this matter entirely and we can call it a Skill Based game.

;)

EDIT: We'll even give you 3 attempts.
Click to expand...
Oh heavens, you werent around for the multi crate deathcrate. We had spy v spy custom days with like 8 crates in the pit
 
On a similar note, I was curious if games like Blackjack, where players are given the choice to hit or stay, would be considered a luck game.
 
There are a lot of games that are a mixture of skill and luck, and most of them are fairly fun, which I'd hate to see start getting argued about.
(e.g., CS Agario is not much of a skill game, especially with 20+ players, yet we play it anyway. You could argue it's a slower version of deathcrate since you can't determine where the big blobs will spawn and where the red ones will be, which affects your size.)
While Deathcrate might not fall into the category of a "fairly fun" game, I still think it's a slippery slope and not worth the change.
It's a JB classic game and should be left well alone.
 
Last edited:
According to my person knowledge I disagree. Ive been playing JB for over a decade now and I firmly believe that there is more skill involved than luck. I understand a lot of people that die in death crate would also agree its luck based. As for myself i rarely had times in death crate where i was eliminated.

Key point of it being partially skill is that you are able to continuously watch the crate and keep a distance from it and even sometimes can predict where its going to go when it hits a wall. I notice lots of people ducking or standing still and praying for the best like its a luck based game.

Now the crate can also unpredictably dart in one direction and kill you before you can react but even still a lot of "skill based games" will still contain a bit of luck in one way or another. I believe if the game isnt 100% luck to the point where skill cant be implemented in ANY Fashion (such as roulette where you remain standing doing nothing until your fate is decided upon you) then the minigame should remain skill based. I believe thats also why it has remained a skill game for so long, im sure a set of the administration team had to consider at some point whether it be skill or luck.
 
Just memorize the crates movement patterns and react quicker when it telegraphs its moves smh my head
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top