NTServer — Retail-like NosTale | Open Beta
A project built on a 2013 C++ core, with substantial parts rewritten in C++20.
Hello everyone,
NTServer is a NosTale private server focused on recreating the familiar retail experience. Our goal is to preserve the original game's identity as we develop and improve the server.
Open beta is available now. We welcome players who want to try the current build and give feedback. Development is ongoing, so please expect bugs and unfinished systems.
Custom additions are limited at this stage. Future changes will be considered with community feedback and should fit the existing game.
Our Sites:
Sites
Link
Web
Discord
In-game screenshots
A character screenshot from the current beta.
About the project
Our development goal is to match retail gameplay and systems. The native core gives us direct control over the implementation as we work towards that goal.
The launcher is compiled from Entwell launcher source using Delphi 2006. You can see the launcher and technical background below.
There are more lies in this thread than on any other cash-grab server.
The launcher wasn't bought from Entwell. It was made using AI by feeding it an old EXE.
The benchmark is useless as ****. Four users? What a great benchmark. Even my Raspberry Pi 4 can handle more users than that.
The pros and cons list is full of lies, too.
What kind of bullshit server source doesn't use .dat files directly? Who the **** reads them as YAML, XML, or even JSON? The only thing that might actually use those formats is the server configuration, and nobody gives a **** about that because it doesn't even matter.
GM Tool? Nice, you're using an old tool that was leaked here on EPVP and just changed the config to connect it to your server.
The claims about formulas and BCards are lies, too.
Thread design? AI-generated.
Bro uses more buzzwords than any other ****** server out there.
There are more lies in this thread than on any other cash-grab server.
The launcher wasn't bought from Entwell. It was made using AI by feeding it an old EXE.
The benchmark is useless as fuck. Four users? What a great benchmark. Even my Raspberry Pi 4 can handle more users than that.
The pros and cons list is full of lies, too.
What kind of bullshit server source doesn't use .dat files directly? Who the fuck reads them as YAML, XML, or even JSON? The only thing that might actually use those formats is the server configuration, and nobody gives a shit about that because it doesn't even matter.
GM Tool? Nice, you're using an old tool that was leaked here on EPVP and just changed the config to connect it to your server.
The claims about formulas and BCards are lies, too.
Thread design? AI-generated.
Bro uses more buzzwords than any other shitty server out there.
What a bullshit
Hey Flow,
Appreciate the feedback, even if it’s a bit hostile. Let’s clear up a few of those assumptions though:
First off, the launcher isn't AI-generated. It's the actual original client launcher compiled in Delphi 2006. If you don't believe me, just throw the executable into IDR (Interactive Delphi Reconstructor) and check it yourself.
About the benchmark, the whole point was to show raw efficiency. If a channel with 4 players eats only about 28-50MB of RAM, then yeah, it absolutely will run on a Raspberry Pi. That's exactly why we write in C++.
As for the AI stuff, yeah, we used it to help with few things. We never hid that.
If you really think our formulas and BCards are "lies", our open beta is live right now. You’re more than welcome to log in and actually test the mechanics yourself instead of just guessing from a forum post.
Regarding the GM Tool, the presentation literally says it's the official Entwell console. We just hooked up the leaked retail UI to our custom backend. Why waste hundreds of hours coding a new UI for Game Masters when the original one works perfectly?
Lastly, calling it a "cash-grab" is wild. We aren't here to milk players for ND overnight. We just want to show the community that there’s a stable, native C++ alternative out there, and you don't always have to rely on WingsEmu or OpenNos.
There are more lies in this thread than on any other cash-grab server.
The launcher wasn't bought from Entwell. It was made using AI by feeding it an old EXE.
The benchmark is useless as ****. Four users? What a great benchmark. Even my Raspberry Pi 4 can handle more users than that.
The pros and cons list is full of lies, too.
What kind of bullshit server source doesn't use .dat files directly? Who the **** reads them as YAML, XML, or even JSON? The only thing that might actually use those formats is the server configuration, and nobody gives a **** about that because it doesn't even matter.
GM Tool? Nice, you're using an old tool that was leaked here on EPVP and just changed the config to connect it to your server.
The claims about formulas and BCards are lies, too.
Thread design? AI-generated.
Bro uses more buzzwords than any other ****** server out there.
What a bullshit
A post without evidence is just as questionable as the claims you're criticizing. Back up your accusations with facts, or they're just speculation.
Since the doors are open, it shouldnt take u to long to find it out, as u did before on many other scammers.
Seems u didnt do ur work correctly and wanted to lash out just.
A post without evidence is just as questionable as the claims you're criticizing. Back up your accusations with facts, or they're just speculation.
Since the doors are open, it shouldnt take u to long to find it out, as u did before on many other scammers.
Seems u didnt do ur work correctly and wanted to lash out just.
I've done my homework. And since the old thread design has disappeared for whatever reason, here we go.
So, let's get started.
And just to clarify one thing: I never called them scammers. I called them liars. (:
1. The "Official" GM Tool
Quote:
Regarding the GM Tool, the presentation literally says it's the official Entwell console. We just hooked up the leaked retail UI to our custom backend. Why waste hundreds of hours coding a new UI for Game Masters when the original one works perfectly?
Interesting, because your own presentation says something completely different:
Quote:
Official Entwell Game Master administration console compiled directly from retail source code for managing connected players, monitoring event states, spawning entities, item generation, and live server moderation.
So you're claiming that you compiled the GM tool directly from retail source code that you don't even have?
Nice. And trust me, I know you don't have it.
There's quite a difference between connecting an existing leaked tool to your backend and compiling something from the original source code.
But apparently, those are the same thing now.
2. The "Authentic Retail Source Code" Launcher
Quote:
Authentic Retail Source Code
Unlike private servers that rely on custom third-party wrappers, NTServer utilizes the official Entwell Delphi 2006 launcher compiled directly from authentic retail source code, preserving the 100% authentic NosTale launcher experience and official patch protocols.
Oh, look. The exact same claim again.
So you also managed to compile the official Entwell launcher from authentic retail source code?
Quite impressive, considering you don't have that source code either.
But whatever.
3. Your Claims About .dat Files
Now let's move on to your claims about .dat files.
How does parsing the original .dat files guarantee 100% client parity when BCard behavior, fairy scaling, and skill execution still depend on the server-side implementation?
Reading the correct values doesn't mean the underlying game mechanics are implemented correctly.
And why exactly would using JSON or YAML as an intermediary format cause data loss?
Could you explain which specific values or data types would be lost during a properly implemented conversion, considering that both formats can preserve the required data without any loss?
Parsing the original files doesn't magically give you the original server-side logic.
So, once again, just marketing buzzwords that mean absolutely nothing. (:
4. Your Thread Comparison
Let's ask a few more questions.
Why do you claim that having 58 threads is worse than having 8?
What actually matters is CPU utilization, scheduler behavior, actual parallelism, synchronization, and response times.
A server with 58 threads can certainly be more efficient than one with just 8 threads.
And then there's this masterpiece:
Quote:
This guarantees thread safety without race conditions.
That's technically incorrect.
Using modern C++ concurrency primitives does not automatically guarantee thread safety.
In fact, race conditions can occur precisely because these mechanisms are implemented or used incorrectly.
Using C++ doesn't magically make your code thread-safe.
But let's ignore a few more things, since the server doesn't even seem to have any real developers.
5. Your "100% Retail Exact" Damage Calculation
This one is especially funny.
Quote:
Formula & BCard Accuracy: 100% Retail Exact Binary Parity
Compared to:
Quote:
Manually approximated formulas & community guesswork
Nice.
So you somehow managed to obtain the complete original server-side damage calculation simply by reading .dat files?
Did Entwell secretly include the entire server-side combat implementation inside those files?
Because parsing client data doesn't give you the original damage formulas, the exact calculation order, or the complete BCard execution logic.
Client data and server-side implementation are two completely different things.
And unless you have access to the original server source code or have independently verified every single mechanic, claiming 100% retail accuracy is nothing more than an unsupported marketing claim.
But sure, everyone else is apparently just guessing while your .dat parser magically knows everything. (:
6. Your "Authentic Retail C++ Core" and "Entwell NTServer"
Quote:
Authentic Retail C++ Core (100% accurate formulas and logic)
And let's not forget what you decided to call your server in the comparison:
Quote:
Entwell NTServer
Wait, what?
Are you seriously presenting your custom C++ emulator as an authentic retail server core and even labeling it "Entwell NTServer"?
You literally stated that your server was built from the ground up in C++, yet you're using terminology that makes it sound like you're running an original Entwell server.
Since when did writing your own emulator make it an authentic retail core?
And why exactly are you putting "Entwell" in front of your server's name in a technical comparison?
Are you trying to imply that your server is officially associated with Entwell or that it's based on their original server technology?
Because unless you actually have access to the original Entwell server source code, it's still just a custom emulator.
And then there's your claim of "100% accurate formulas and logic."
How exactly did you verify that?
Did you somehow obtain the complete original Entwell server implementation, or are we back to your magical .dat parser again?
Reimplementing retail behavior doesn't turn your custom emulator into an authentic retail server core.
And calling it "Entwell NTServer" doesn't magically make it an official Entwell product either.
At this point, you're not just exaggerating technical features. You're using wording that could easily mislead people into believing your server has some kind of official connection to Entwell.
So which is it? A custom emulator built from scratch, or an authentic Entwell retail server?
Because your marketing seems to suggest both. (:
7. Your "Verified Live Production Telemetry"
And finally, my personal favorite:
Quote:
Verified Live Production Telemetry
Bro had 4 players online, managed to read a few statistics, and called it verified production telemetry.
Four players.
FOUR.
What exactly is that supposed to prove?
That your server can handle four connections without exploding?
You can't seriously present four active players as meaningful evidence of MMORPG server performance or scalability.
Please kill me.
Conclusion
At this point, the entire presentation seems to consist of technical buzzwords, misleading comparisons, and claims that aren't backed up by any meaningful evidence.
Claiming to have original Entwell source code, advertising 100% retail accuracy just because you parse .dat files, and presenting four players as a performance benchmark doesn't make your server technically superior.
It just makes your marketing look ridiculous.
Less AI generated marketing nonsense, more actual technical evidence, please. (:
I've done my homework. And since the old thread design has disappeared for whatever reason, here we go.
So, let's get started.
And just to clarify one thing: I never called them scammers. I called them liars. (:
1. The "Official" GM Tool
Interesting, because your own presentation says something completely different:
So you're claiming that you compiled the GM tool directly from retail source code that you don't even have?
Nice. And trust me, I know you don't have it.
There's quite a difference between connecting an existing leaked tool to your backend and compiling something from the original source code.
But apparently, those are the same thing now.
2. The "Authentic Retail Source Code" Launcher
Oh, look. The exact same claim again.
So you also managed to compile the official Entwell launcher from authentic retail source code?
Quite impressive, considering you don't have that source code either.
But whatever.
3. Your Claims About .dat Files
Now let's move on to your claims about .dat files.
How does parsing the original .dat files guarantee 100% client parity when BCard behavior, fairy scaling, and skill execution still depend on the server-side implementation?
Reading the correct values doesn't mean the underlying game mechanics are implemented correctly.
And why exactly would using JSON or YAML as an intermediary format cause data loss?
Could you explain which specific values or data types would be lost during a properly implemented conversion, considering that both formats can preserve the required data without any loss?
Parsing the original files doesn't magically give you the original server-side logic.
So, once again, just marketing buzzwords that mean absolutely nothing. (:
4. Your Thread Comparison
Let's ask a few more questions.
Why do you claim that having 58 threads is worse than having 8?
What actually matters is CPU utilization, scheduler behavior, actual parallelism, synchronization, and response times.
A server with 58 threads can certainly be more efficient than one with just 8 threads.
And then there's this masterpiece:
That's technically incorrect.
Using modern C++ concurrency primitives does not automatically guarantee thread safety.
In fact, race conditions can occur precisely because these mechanisms are implemented or used incorrectly.
Using C++ doesn't magically make your code thread-safe.
But let's ignore a few more things, since the server doesn't even seem to have any real developers.
5. Your "100% Retail Exact" Damage Calculation
This one is especially funny.
Compared to:
Nice.
So you somehow managed to obtain the complete original server-side damage calculation simply by reading .dat files?
Did Entwell secretly include the entire server-side combat implementation inside those files?
Because parsing client data doesn't give you the original damage formulas, the exact calculation order, or the complete BCard execution logic.
Client data and server-side implementation are two completely different things.
And unless you have access to the original server source code or have independently verified every single mechanic, claiming 100% retail accuracy is nothing more than an unsupported marketing claim.
But sure, everyone else is apparently just guessing while your .dat parser magically knows everything. (:
6. Your "Authentic Retail C++ Core" and "Entwell NTServer"
And let's not forget what you decided to call your server in the comparison:
Wait, what?
Are you seriously presenting your custom C++ emulator as an authentic retail server core and even labeling it "Entwell NTServer"?
You literally stated that your server was built from the ground up in C++, yet you're using terminology that makes it sound like you're running an original Entwell server.
Since when did writing your own emulator make it an authentic retail core?
And why exactly are you putting "Entwell" in front of your server's name in a technical comparison?
Are you trying to imply that your server is officially associated with Entwell or that it's based on their original server technology?
Because unless you actually have access to the original Entwell server source code, it's still just a custom emulator.
And then there's your claim of "100% accurate formulas and logic."
How exactly did you verify that?
Did you somehow obtain the complete original Entwell server implementation, or are we back to your magical .dat parser again?
Reimplementing retail behavior doesn't turn your custom emulator into an authentic retail server core.
And calling it "Entwell NTServer" doesn't magically make it an official Entwell product either.
At this point, you're not just exaggerating technical features. You're using wording that could easily mislead people into believing your server has some kind of official connection to Entwell.
So which is it? A custom emulator built from scratch, or an authentic Entwell retail server?
Because your marketing seems to suggest both. (:
7. Your "Verified Live Production Telemetry"
And finally, my personal favorite:
Bro had 4 players online, managed to read a few statistics, and called it verified production telemetry.
Four players.
FOUR.
What exactly is that supposed to prove?
That your server can handle four connections without exploding?
You can't seriously present four active players as meaningful evidence of MMORPG server performance or scalability.
Please kill me.
Conclusion
At this point, the entire presentation seems to consist of technical buzzwords, misleading comparisons, and claims that aren't backed up by any meaningful evidence.
Claiming to have original Entwell source code, advertising 100% retail accuracy just because you parse .dat files, and presenting four players as a performance benchmark doesn't make your server technically superior.
It just makes your marketing look ridiculous.
Less AI generated marketing nonsense, more actual technical evidence, please. (:
"There are more lies in this thread than on any other cash-grab server."
You're essentially accusing the developers of running a dishonest, money-grabbing operation. That's a serious accusation, and you're making it without providing concrete evidence to support it. You can do better than this, seriously. Talk it down to just "i call them only liars" but you know what ur doing here!
Your second post is just a longer version of your first, once again making accusations without providing any actual proof.
The only legitimate point you've raised so far is your criticism of the benchmark methodology, specifically the fact that it was tested with only four players. The rest comes across as little more than complaining without substantiating your claims.
You're primarily lashing out at the general AI-generated post, which, admittedly, has some questionable points and questionable takes. No doubt about that. However, you haven't actually tested the game or provided concrete evidence to support your broader criticisms.
If you have actual evidence, post it and let's discuss the technical details. Otherwise, these remain accusations, not proof.
Thats the 2nd time u guys misread the cash grab part he just said that there are more lies than in the servers that usually lie to cash grab he never accused the server of cash grabbing idk how you guys misinterpet that and all his points are valid there is just no reason to advertise with things that just cant be true you dont even need to test the Server for this the whole Presentation is just full of Buzzwords that mean nothing since they have no correlation or they are just lies. At the end of the day most part has been written by AI and the AI used Reference from OpenNos, WingsEmu and NosCore since thats all Open Source and AI just uses what it can find before it does anything from scratch no need to reinvent the Wheel dont really know what the purpose of this Source is either since C# wont have any issues unless u have a gigantic Playerbase which never happens in Nostale.
Thats the 2nd time u guys misread the cash grab part he just said that there are more lies than in the servers that usually lie to cash grab he never accused the server of cash grabbing idk how you guys misinterpet that and all his points are valid there is just no reason to advertise with things that just cant be true you dont even need to test the Server for this the whole Presentation is just full of Buzzwords that mean nothing since they have no correlation or they are just lies. At the end of the day most part has been written by AI and the AI used Reference from OpenNos, WingsEmu and NosCore since thats all Open Source and AI just uses what it can find before it does anything from scratch no need to reinvent the Wheel dont really know what the purpose of this Source is either since C# wont have any issues unless u have a gigantic Playerbase which never happens in Nostale.
If the presentation contains inaccurate or exaggerated technical claims, those should absolutely be challenged. I'm not arguing otherwise. But there's a difference between identifying specific inaccuracies and dismissing the entire project as meaningless without examining what it actually does.
Can i ask why you come out of nowhere and defend the "scammer" claim?
Seems mister flow working on your project? Kinda sus now, no?
Defend it as much u want, there is no doubt what he wanted to express with this sentence, since it was his first words.
Its nothing new that flow´s ego is questionable since 99Nos and that guy tryed to fight actual devs and always endet up into losing it and going full mad mode.
defending trash talk with no backend shows your own character too i guess.
It is getting kinda boring, nostale is anyway such a low pop game and attacking people who are actually trying something new in this scene are getting downtalked by egoistic OG Members.
Spend time to rip the actual scammers here in this scene...
If the presentation contains inaccurate or exaggerated technical claims, those should absolutely be challenged. I'm not arguing otherwise. But there's a difference between identifying specific inaccuracies and dismissing the entire project as meaningless without examining what it actually does.
Can i ask why you come out of nowhere and defend the "scammer" claim?
Seems mister flow working on your project? Kinda sus now, no?
Defend it as much u want, there is no doubt what he wanted to express with this sentence, since it was his first words.
Its nothing new that flow´s ego is questionable since 99Nos and that guy tryed to fight actual devs and always endet up into losing it and going full mad mode.
defending trash talk with no backend shows your own character too i guess.
It is getting kinda boring, nostale is anyway such a low pop game and attacking people who are actually trying something new in this scene are getting downtalked by egoistic OG Members.
Spend time to rip the actual scammers here in this scene...
<- My actual reaction when I saw your message. Again.
This is my last reply to your bullshit.
If that's how you interpret my sentence, that's your problem, not mine. Learn English.
And he probably only showed up because you brought up the whole "scammer" thing twice, as if it's the most important part of this entire discussion. You must be part of their team or something, because I honestly can't explain why you're so desperately defending them otherwise. Jesus.
And what the fuck does 99Nos have to do with any of this?
As for my ego, it's exactly where it should be. I've always called out misleading claims, and I'm not about to stop now.
And unlike you, I'm actually pointing out specific technical issues.
They claimed their GM tool and launcher were compiled directly from original Entwell source code. Yet they later admitted that they simply connected an existing leaked GM tool to their custom backend. That's not the same thing as compiling it from retail source code.
They claimed that directly parsing .dat files guarantees 100% retail accuracy for BCards, damage formulas, and skill mechanics. But reading client data doesn't magically give you the original server-side implementation.
They suggested that converting .dat files into JSON or YAML causes data loss, without explaining which values would supposedly be lost during a properly implemented conversion.
They presented 58 threads versus 8 threads as a meaningful performance comparison, even though thread count alone says nothing about efficiency. They also claimed their concurrency implementation guarantees thread safety without race conditions, which is technically nonsense.
And then there's their so-called "Verified Live Production Telemetry", showing a server with just four players online. How exactly is that supposed to demonstrate scalability or performance under actual load?
These aren't random insults. They're specific claims taken directly from their own presentation, and I've explained why they're misleading, technically incorrect, or unsupported by the evidence they've shown.
So no, this isn't just trash talk. I've already provided the exact statements I'm criticizing and explained what's wrong with them.
If you disagree, feel free to address those technical points instead of bringing up my ego, 99Nos, or some imaginary scammer accusation.
And yes, I've got the screenshots and evidence to back up my claims. I'm more than happy to share everything with an elitepvpers moderator if necessary.
<- My actual reaction when I saw your message. Again.
This is my last reply to your bullshit.
If that's how you interpret my sentence, that's your problem, not mine. Learn English.
And he probably only showed up because you brought up the whole "scammer" thing twice, as if it's the most important part of this entire discussion. You must be part of their team or something, because I honestly can't explain why you're so desperately defending them otherwise. Jesus.
And what the fuck does 99Nos have to do with any of this?
As for my ego, it's exactly where it should be. I've always called out misleading claims, and I'm not about to stop now.
And unlike you, I'm actually pointing out specific technical issues.
They claimed their GM tool and launcher were compiled directly from original Entwell source code. Yet they later admitted that they simply connected an existing leaked GM tool to their custom backend. That's not the same thing as compiling it from retail source code.
They claimed that directly parsing .dat files guarantees 100% retail accuracy for BCards, damage formulas, and skill mechanics. But reading client data doesn't magically give you the original server-side implementation.
They suggested that converting .dat files into JSON or YAML causes data loss, without explaining which values would supposedly be lost during a properly implemented conversion.
They presented 58 threads versus 8 threads as a meaningful performance comparison, even though thread count alone says nothing about efficiency. They also claimed their concurrency implementation guarantees thread safety without race conditions, which is technically nonsense.
And then there's their so-called "Verified Live Production Telemetry", showing a server with just four players online. How exactly is that supposed to demonstrate scalability or performance under actual load?
These aren't random insults. They're specific claims taken directly from their own presentation, and I've explained why they're misleading, technically incorrect, or unsupported by the evidence they've shown.
So no, this isn't just trash talk. I've already provided the exact statements I'm criticizing and explained what's wrong with them.
If you disagree, feel free to address those technical points instead of bringing up my ego, 99Nos, or some imaginary scammer accusation.
And yes, I've got the screenshots and evidence to back up my claims. I'm more than happy to share everything with an elitepvpers moderator if necessary.
If the presentation contains inaccurate or exaggerated technical claims, those should absolutely be challenged. I'm not arguing otherwise. But there's a difference between identifying specific inaccuracies and dismissing the entire project as meaningless without examining what it actually does.
Can i ask why you come out of nowhere and defend the "scammer" claim?
Seems mister flow working on your project? Kinda sus now, no?
Defend it as much u want, there is no doubt what he wanted to express with this sentence, since it was his first words.
Its nothing new that flow´s ego is questionable since 99Nos and that guy tryed to fight actual devs and always endet up into losing it and going full mad mode.
defending trash talk with no backend shows your own character too i guess.
Well, you should calm down for now, since no one is making personal attacks on anyone. Attacking people who don't agree with your point of view only makes your opinion seem more ridiculous and your argument less convincing.
That said, I have nothing to do with Fl0w. I don't know him, and I don't know anything about his past, so I'll just limit myself to expressing my opinion on what's written in this post.
The "report" included in the first post was indeed full of inaccuracies and false claims that led users to believe that yours was essentially a new server that actually uses the official source code. The description changed from “We've created a new, higher-performance emulator” to “We use the official core.” These are very different statements that contradict each other.
I’m not criticizing the use of AI in general. On the contrary, I’m in favor of it if it’s used by people who have the skills to make the most of this technology, since it offers enormous and substantial benefits. What I am criticizing, however, is your use of AI. You created a post with a report generated entirely by AI without even bothering to proofread it and correct the inaccuracies. This isn’t the fault of AI, but of those who use it.
So the question that immediately comes to mind is... If you didn't even bother to review a report you were going to publish to promote yourselves and raise your profile, how can you expect people to believe that you even spent two hours of your time correcting any mistakes made during development?
That said, my comment is based on “pre-testing,” so some parts of it may change after a few hours of testing. I'm referring mainly to the last part about development. The rest, unfortunately for you, is an accurate assessment that won't change even after future server tests, since it has been proven to be completely inadequate.
Well, you should calm down for now, since no one is making personal attacks on anyone. Attacking people who don't agree with your point of view only makes your opinion seem more ridiculous and your argument less convincing.
That said, I have nothing to do with Fl0w. I don't know him, and I don't know anything about his past, so I'll just limit myself to expressing my opinion on what's written in this post.
The "report" included in the first post was indeed full of inaccuracies and false claims that led users to believe that yours was essentially a new server that actually uses the official source code. The description changed from “We've created a new, higher-performance emulator” to “We use the official core.” These are very different statements that contradict each other.
I’m not criticizing the use of AI in general. On the contrary, I’m in favor of it if it’s used by people who have the skills to make the most of this technology, since it offers enormous and substantial benefits. What I am criticizing, however, is your use of AI. You created a post with a report generated entirely by AI without even bothering to proofread it and correct the inaccuracies. This isn’t the fault of AI, but of those who use it.
So the question that immediately comes to mind is... If you didn't even bother to review a report you were going to publish to promote yourselves and raise your profile, how can you expect people to believe that you even spent two hours of your time correcting any mistakes made during development?
That said, my comment is based on “pre-testing,” so some parts of it may change after a few hours of testing. I'm referring mainly to the last part about development. The rest, unfortunately for you, is an accurate assessment that won't change even after future server tests, since it has been proven to be completely inadequate.
I understand your point, and I agree that the presentation should have been reviewed more carefully before being published as i said before. If the wording about the official core or source code was inaccurate, then it should be corrected. I'm not arguing against that.
However, I think you're going a bit too far by using mistakes in the presentation to question the developers' entire development process.
A misleading description is a legitimate reason to criticize the marketing. It doesn't automatically prove that the backend is inadequate or that the developers haven't put serious work into the project. Those are separate questions that require separate evidence.
And no i dont work on any nostale projects anymore since atleast 7 years,
however i find it always cool when new people start something new.
I understand your point, and I agree that the presentation should have been reviewed more carefully before being published as i said before. If the wording about the official core or source code was inaccurate, then it should be corrected. I'm not arguing against that.
However, I think you're going a bit too far by using mistakes in the presentation to question the developers' entire development process.
A misleading description is a legitimate reason to criticize the marketing. It doesn't automatically prove that the backend is inadequate or that the developers haven't put serious work into the project. Those are separate questions that require separate evidence.
And no i dont work on any nostale projects anymore since atleast 7 years,
however i find it always cool when new people start something new.
I pointed out in the last section that my concern stems precisely from the fact that they didn't notice some fairly obvious errors in a report that was supposed to be released to the public. If they don't devote their time to something that everyone can see, who's to say they've devoted any time to something I won't be able to see? I think that's a reasonable concern, don't you?
Btw, I did mention in the last part of my comment that, about the development, my opinion might change in the future since this was a pre-test opinion. Once I've played for a few hours and have actually been able to test their work, I plan to post another review based solely on my own experience.
I've done my homework. And since the old thread design has disappeared for whatever reason, here we go.
So, let's get started.
And just to clarify one thing: I never called them scammers. I called them liars. (:
1. The "Official" GM Tool
Interesting, because your own presentation says something completely different:
So you're claiming that you compiled the GM tool directly from retail source code that you don't even have?
Nice. And trust me, I know you don't have it.
There's quite a difference between connecting an existing leaked tool to your backend and compiling something from the original source code.
But apparently, those are the same thing now.
2. The "Authentic Retail Source Code" Launcher
Oh, look. The exact same claim again.
So you also managed to compile the official Entwell launcher from authentic retail source code?
Quite impressive, considering you don't have that source code either.
But whatever.
3. Your Claims About .dat Files
Now let's move on to your claims about .dat files.
How does parsing the original .dat files guarantee 100% client parity when BCard behavior, fairy scaling, and skill execution still depend on the server-side implementation?
Reading the correct values doesn't mean the underlying game mechanics are implemented correctly.
And why exactly would using JSON or YAML as an intermediary format cause data loss?
Could you explain which specific values or data types would be lost during a properly implemented conversion, considering that both formats can preserve the required data without any loss?
Parsing the original files doesn't magically give you the original server-side logic.
So, once again, just marketing buzzwords that mean absolutely nothing. (:
4. Your Thread Comparison
Let's ask a few more questions.
Why do you claim that having 58 threads is worse than having 8?
What actually matters is CPU utilization, scheduler behavior, actual parallelism, synchronization, and response times.
A server with 58 threads can certainly be more efficient than one with just 8 threads.
And then there's this masterpiece:
That's technically incorrect.
Using modern C++ concurrency primitives does not automatically guarantee thread safety.
In fact, race conditions can occur precisely because these mechanisms are implemented or used incorrectly.
Using C++ doesn't magically make your code thread-safe.
But let's ignore a few more things, since the server doesn't even seem to have any real developers.
5. Your "100% Retail Exact" Damage Calculation
This one is especially funny.
Compared to:
Nice.
So you somehow managed to obtain the complete original server-side damage calculation simply by reading .dat files?
Did Entwell secretly include the entire server-side combat implementation inside those files?
Because parsing client data doesn't give you the original damage formulas, the exact calculation order, or the complete BCard execution logic.
Client data and server-side implementation are two completely different things.
And unless you have access to the original server source code or have independently verified every single mechanic, claiming 100% retail accuracy is nothing more than an unsupported marketing claim.
But sure, everyone else is apparently just guessing while your .dat parser magically knows everything. (:
6. Your "Authentic Retail C++ Core" and "Entwell NTServer"
And let's not forget what you decided to call your server in the comparison:
Wait, what?
Are you seriously presenting your custom C++ emulator as an authentic retail server core and even labeling it "Entwell NTServer"?
You literally stated that your server was built from the ground up in C++, yet you're using terminology that makes it sound like you're running an original Entwell server.
Since when did writing your own emulator make it an authentic retail core?
And why exactly are you putting "Entwell" in front of your server's name in a technical comparison?
Are you trying to imply that your server is officially associated with Entwell or that it's based on their original server technology?
Because unless you actually have access to the original Entwell server source code, it's still just a custom emulator.
And then there's your claim of "100% accurate formulas and logic."
How exactly did you verify that?
Did you somehow obtain the complete original Entwell server implementation, or are we back to your magical .dat parser again?
Reimplementing retail behavior doesn't turn your custom emulator into an authentic retail server core.
And calling it "Entwell NTServer" doesn't magically make it an official Entwell product either.
At this point, you're not just exaggerating technical features. You're using wording that could easily mislead people into believing your server has some kind of official connection to Entwell.
So which is it? A custom emulator built from scratch, or an authentic Entwell retail server?
Because your marketing seems to suggest both. (:
7. Your "Verified Live Production Telemetry"
And finally, my personal favorite:
Bro had 4 players online, managed to read a few statistics, and called it verified production telemetry.
Four players.
FOUR.
What exactly is that supposed to prove?
That your server can handle four connections without exploding?
You can't seriously present four active players as meaningful evidence of MMORPG server performance or scalability.
Please kill me.
Conclusion
At this point, the entire presentation seems to consist of technical buzzwords, misleading comparisons, and claims that aren't backed up by any meaningful evidence.
Claiming to have original Entwell source code, advertising 100% retail accuracy just because you parse .dat files, and presenting four players as a performance benchmark doesn't make your server technically superior.
It just makes your marketing look ridiculous.
Less AI generated marketing nonsense, more actual technical evidence, please. (:
First, I’ll take full responsibility for the presentation. I used AI to format and structure the text, and it clearly hallucinated and over-embellished the marketing buzzwords. That was a mistake on my end, and I understand why it raised red flags.
To address your specific technical points without the marketing fluff:
1 & 3. The GM Tool & .dat Files
As mentioned, this was an AI formatting error that completely misrepresented the reality. We do not have the retail source code for the GM tool. The reality is much simpler: we hooked up a leaked tool to our mysql. Regarding the .dat files, parsing them doesn't magically write the server logic, you're right. The AI exaggerated this.
2. The Launcher
Despite the marketing text errors, the launcher actually is compiled directly from the Delphi code.
4 & 6. The Core, Threads, & "Retail C++"
To be absolutely clear: this is not Wingsemu, OpenNos, or any other leaked public source. The core is based on a 2013 architecture completely rewritten in modern C++20. I understand the skepticism since most projects just reuse the same public repos, but this is a proprietary rewrite from the ground up. Regarding the thread comparison, the point was simply to highlight our specific concurrency model, not to start a theoretical debate on scheduler behavior.
5. Damage Calculation
No magical .dat parsing here. The damage formulas, buffs, and debuffs have been reverse-engineered and rigorously tested to function exactly 1:1 with the current Gameforge version.
7. Telemetry & Performance
You’re right, 4 active players isn't a stress test. To give you the actual simulated benchmark numbers: we ran 200 clientless connections concurrently. The server footprint hovered around ~200MB of RAM with 7% CPU utilization.
I’m perfectly fine with skepticism it's standard here. But since you asked for "more actual technical evidence," tell me exactly what specific technical evidence or benchmarks you want to see, and I will provide them.
200clientless bots moving, fighting, questing or doing timespaces
[ALL SYSTEM'S LIKE OFFICIAL] Serverfiles full like official 07/29/2016 - Metin2 PServer Guides & Strategies - 6 Replies Skype adress: drink.box ( Sorin Bourceanu )
For price add me in skype.
I sell serverfiles like official 100%.
My files contain:
![NTServer [Native C++] | Open Beta*|*Official Like](https://www.elitepvpers.com/forum/iconimages/nostale-pserver-advertising/ntserver-native-c-open-beta-official-like_ltr.gif){kind=small}
<- My actual reaction when I saw your message. Again.
it's standard here. But since you asked for "more actual technical evidence," tell me exactly what specific technical evidence or benchmarks you want to see, and I will provide them.
