World of Warships – Seems Legit

81,567 views
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (6,667 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...

The team’s down to twenty points with two ships versus five. Where did I put my Man Pants?

All music licensed from www.epidemicsound.com and www.machinimasound.com

Merchandise!
https://teespring.com/stores/mighty-jingles-salt-mine-eu
https://teespring.com/stores/mighty-jingles-salt-mine-na

If you have a World of Warships replay, consider using a hosting service like https://replayswows.com/

Just be aware that I get hundreds of emails every week and I can’t promise that I’ll show what you send in.

53 Comments:

  1. American ship captains never sleep when jingles post

  2. Jingles you are so funny! You start you video with “Jake” and end it with “Dave”…. 🙂

  3. You gotta love seeing a carrier get chased into a corner and destroyed.

  4. To be fair, that Des Moines, was pretty battered after the duel with amagi, so pobeda being able to strike it by that point should not surprise.
    Even during old RTS days, the no fly zones only lasted as long as it took someone to HE spam AA cruiser….

    I am not saying carriers ain’t OP, I am only pointing out that this particular case of AA cruiser vs carrier is not a good example for why 😉

    • @Trejgon There are lots of problems with CV’s. The ones most worth mentioning is mobility, spotting and lack of interaction. When there is a CV in the game you dont play against them as much as they play against you. No different level of gameplay for a cv than if it was vs bots other than maybe better rudder juking.

      It would be like if you were playing a game of poker but randomly someone at the table would just get kicked in the balls.

    • @Trejgon Yes, but at least back in the RTS days it was harder to do, and if you really wanted to kill a monty, a DM or a mino you were paying for it too, and if you fucked it up you lost half your planes or more for almost nothing. That’s not even mentioning the fact that the enemy CV could strafe your entire group as you come in for the strike. Now it’s just a cake walk with minimal losses, they can drop a fighter patrol there and kill 3 of your planes, big deal.

      That’s the main thing defenders of the new system always seem to forget. There used to be counterplay. The system wasnt perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but at least there was something the enemy team could do. Now all you can do is sink the CV, who will inevitably be beyond the entire map and enemy team.

    • Jingles also commented about the DM using its DefAA. Speaking for myself (as well as what the vocal majority say), on USN CAs, I run radar and hydro, not radar and DefAA.

      Hydro is almost always applicable/useful in a match, unlike DefAA.

    • @ainumahtar Counterplay for RTS CV system? haha good one.
      RTS CVs was a match decided by whom got better CV player. Even if someone happened to stroll into a match with full spec no-fly-zone ship, it would never matter because there is only that much of a map this one ship could cover. If your CV was not good, and enemy CV was capable of thinking and breathing at the same time – there was virtually nothing you could do in the old system, other than perhaps pray for rng to keep rolling godly on your team AA rolls.

      And for DM – you quite nicely ignored the “battered with most of it’s AA knocked off” part. DM who got this low from close encounter with a BB would be freebie in old system for any player able to klick autoattack and twist the angles a bit so different bombing squads arrive from different sides. Even with tier advantage.

    • @Beware ironically enough that was also an issue with old system tho. Except CVs only played against themselves with rest of the match being CV vs rng of AA guns, and other ships vs rng of their AA guns.

      CVs used to quite virtually play a different game all together, but happened to severly impact people in the match.

  5. “Oh Wargaming, don’t ever change”

    Rest easy Jingles. They won’t.

  6. Jake becomes Dave in the end, kraken announced at both the 5th and 6th kill, vintage Jingles, excellent 👏

  7. I’m curious why he didn’t get his third Kraken after killing the carrier 😀

    never change, Jingles haha

  8. Damn. This is the first game where I’ve seen someone successfully earn not 1 but 2 Kraken Unleashed awards in a game. Bless you Jingles for pointing that out to us I almost missed it.

  9. You forgot to mention that by killing the carrier, Jake finally got his kraken unleached.

  10. Well, who could have predicted 2 imaginary soviet ships winning this?

  11. That match would have drove me nuts, nobody moving, everyone scared to get their paint scratched. That match went the way it did because everyone was waiting for the other guy.

  12. Jake: gets his 6th kill
    Old man Jingles: “and there’s the Kraken unleashed”

  13. Hey Jingles, yesterday I achieved a milestone in my life, I defended my thesis and now I’m going to graduate with a bachelor of Economics! I wanted to thank for being here, I’ve been watching your videos since the times of war thunder, maybe 2013 or something like that? I don’t remember, but during these final semesters every day when I woke up I’d come to see a newly released Jingles video to start the day on a good note, thanks for doing what you do! I hope you keep doing it for a long time! 🙂

    • I’m going to troll you by asking yo what you think of Crypto ….. but before running away from an answer, I’ll congratulate you on your degree in a field where you will never get your hands dirty or hurt your back. I wish I thought of that. ; )

    • congratz sir!

    • @Ursa Major when it comes to money, or better yet, currency, there are two main schools of thought, the classic/neoclassic/monetarist, and the Keynesian.

      in the Monetarist, currency has 3 defining characteristics, it’s an unit of account, a store of value, a medium of exchange, and a medium of payments, and it’s original purpose was to solve the problem of double coincidence (when you go out to buy something in a non-monetary market, you have to find someone that has what you want and also wants what you have).

      The Keynesian theory follows another approach, currency is one, of many assets in an economy, which has an interest rate, all assets have an interest in terms of itself, and it’s defined by it’s rentability (well, he says rentability/production capacity), cost of maintenance, and liquidity, and, in it’s ideal form, currency would be only formed by the asset that has no rentability, no cost of maintenance and high liquidity, (but currency could also have some rentability or cost of maintenance) this way it would always be preferable to have currency in relation to anything else, thus, the currency interest rate would define the economy’s interest rate, at this point it exercises an important function, it determines the marginal efficiency of capital, in other words, at what level firms and companies are willing to hire work to produce, instead of investing in some stocks or something else. Furthermore, thanks to it’s high liquidity, currency should always be preferred over anything else, thus it will also determinate nominal contracts and nominal salaries.

      I write all this to say that, under these two definitions, crypto has of yet to serve the purpose people assigned to it, to replace traditional currency, under the monetarist approach it’s not a store of value (it needs to be understood that, when we say a store of value, it means that we can delay purchasing something today to buy it tomorrow, and there should still be the same value we left there, at least nominally, but any good/asset can exercise this function if it’s liquid enough, crypto suffers that many people expect it to increase in value, thus it hurts it’s liquidity, and, difficulties it’s “store of value”-ness, making people that hold crypto to, at one point, want to exchange it for currency) , a medium of exchange or payments, but it’s an unit of account

      Under the Keynesian approach, in and of itself, crypto has a rentability of production, you can be here making it every hour of every day, technically it has a cost of maintenance, because if your machine or wherever it is stored is failing, you will need to repair or get a new one to be able to access it somehow, and it has low liquidity, you will find difficulty in finding places that accept crypto, if crypto had the first two, it wouldn’t be a problem, but it has also the third and last one, which is the biggest problem, it’s not liquid enough to not be an asset and instead be currency, thanks to that, you won’t find people willing to sign contracts or utilize it as actual currency, in fact, when the economy reaches the equilibrium point, as defined by the interest rate, if the currency was crypto, you’d find that people would simply turn to making more currency, instead of ceasing production (it’s this that creates recessions and non-full employment states in Keynes’ view), thus crypto can’t be a currency under this view either.

      Could crypto achieve the status of currency? yes, but as of now it doesn’t look like it. Also take note on two important things, one, you may ask, “but central banks print money all the time? so how could Keynes’ be right in his approach that at equilibrium point more money can’t be made?”, for this you need to understand the process how money is printed, when the central bank wants to put more money in the economy, it offers loans to commercial banks at a discounted interest rate, it’s up to those banks to accept it or not, so even if the central bank tried it’s hardest, there would be a point that it simply couldn’t make any more money because no bank would be willing to borrow from it.
      The second point is that, as you notice, at no point was a central bank or the backing of a currency with something else required for money to develop in any of these schools of thought, therefore crypto can in the future become currency, but it has still a long way to go, and I have to admit that in the moment, it really doesn’t look like it’s heading in the way of becoming a currency, and instead will remain an asset, whether that is good or bad remains to be seen.

      Also, two addendums, you may claim for example, bitcoin at one point will apparently not be able to make any more, but at least under Keynesian theory, long term thinking like that isn’t valid, as Keynes himself said, “in the long term we’re dead”, what really matters in his vision is the here and now, and at the current moment, as it looks more crypto can be printed from one day to the other.
      Both theories have beginnings in one economic identity, MV = PY, money * velocity of money (how often transactions occurs) = general price level * production, in the classical theory, they assume that both V and Y are constant/stable in equilibrium, therefore any change in Money supply results in changes in the general price level ((de)inflation), in the Keynesian approach, only V is constant/stable, so in this case we have a change in money supply results in both a change in general price level and production of the economy, I think the Keynesian approach is more valid, in fact, the distinction between classics and monetarists is that monetarists admit that Keynes was right in his idea, and then try to adapt their previous idea to fit with what Keynes has also theorized (the theory of portfolio of money, you may have heard of it), I remember there was this graph based on US data that showed how there were times of high money supply and low inflation (I looked up just now to accurately tell this, 1965-1970, 1985-1990, just before 2000 to 2006/7 more or less, 2009/10 to roughly 2013 and the most recent one in the book where I saw it started in the last year of the graph, 2015), honestly, it all depends on the velocity of money, there can be more money without one problems if velocity of transactions slow down, or vice versa, but since that is usually stable over time, you can’t count on it.

      This is all to say that, crypto as a currency is something I don’t have faith in because it doesn’t look like it will ever be true, but just in case I do am the owner of 0,001 bitcoin, it’s just a shame it’s resulting in a loss for me hahaha, but oh well, if crypto remains an asset I have opportunity to recover that loss x)

    • @Ursa Major Also sorry for the wall of text, I imagine that wasn’t what you were expecting hahaha and thanks, I may not be getting my hands dirty or hurting my back like in more brick-and-mortar fields, but never getting my hand dirty (in the sense of harming others) and hurting my back (in the sense of facilitating other’s crimes, such as corruption), is something I strive to achieve, when I chose this field I chose for a motive, I wanted to make a positive contribution to this world, and long ago I identified that sure, doctors can save lives and lawyers can defend the innocent, but all problems ultimately derive from the way our system is run, and there’s no better way to understand, and therefore fix it’s problems, than to understand how the economy works, because, in the last stance, everything always comes back to the economy, because the doctor can’t save lives if the medicine isn’t there, and the lawyers can’t defend the innocent if the judges are bought by the guilty, and many other different problems end up deriving thanks to/through the economy, quite literally in fact, many diseases could be avoided if many cities were just more sanitary, but they will never be while someone finds a way to profit, legally or illegally, from their misery. In summary, I wanted to help and make a difference, and I hope I can do that, even if takes decades

    • Congrats!

  14. I would actually love to see this battle from the Des Moines’ pov.

  15. The main reason why Stalingrad isn’t that OP anymore – the commander rework. You cannot mount fire duration reduction skill, you cannot mount fireproof too. Alaska and other battlecruisers also suffer from that, but Stalingrad has this abysmal concealment that it’s harder to disengage that easy.

  16. Seeing the Stalingrad do almost 10k a salvo to a yamato @ 22km, then bouncing twice of the flat broadside of the tallinn really is the icing on the cake

  17. That rear turret drive by on the Yamato was so smooth

  18. Cannot imagine how enraged that Des Moines was at the end of that game. He had a good game and his team had multiple chances to put it away.

  19. Ah yes… let me express my complete surprise at the two imaginary op soviet ships carrying.

  20. Kenneth Paulson

    You were correct Jingles, his name is Jacob, NA server. He’s in the same clan as myself. Good guy and a well deserved win.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.