Jump to content

..would you play?  

304 members have voted

  1. 1. ..would you play?

    • Yes,of course 100%!
      122
    • Depends Rates,Staff,L2Pack,Devs etc..
      125
    • No i wont... tell why.
      58


Recommended Posts

Posted

it will be good as x500 like l2refused

Only buffer with buffs

and special pvp,farm areas

NO CUSTOM ITEMS

or only dynasty!

Tottaly aggre with u!! :O

L2Refused was awesome!! :O

S grade items normal price and Dynasty items 2x S grade price It was fucking awesome !! :P

Without any custom !! :P

On l2refused only enchant was bad (safe 3 or 4 max 30 and chance 75% that was worst) Better max 20-25 and safe chance same :P

I remember i broke there Dyna Bow +25 on 26 uhh =/

Posted

Tottaly aggre with u!! :O

L2Refused was awesome!! :O

S grade items normal price and Dynasty items 2x S grade price It was -beep-ing awesome !! :P

Without any custom !! :P

On l2refused only enchant was bad (safe 3 or 4 max 30 and chance 75% that was worst) Better max 20-25 and safe chance same :P

I remember i broke there Dyna Bow +25 on 26 uhh =/

 

 

LOL 500x? No Damn,this is to big rate,if you wanna a server without a little farm and exp go to 3000x

30x Will be Awesome Like Nightmare 30x,With S grade Set's and mby dinasty set (Without dinasty weapons)

And enchant +3 safe and max +How much you can make :D 

Posted

make one PVP svr high rate ( XP : 2k or 3k ) with no customs , no augments , no corrupt and gm give items , with easy enchant  like safe + 5 max +20 with 75 % and you reach 400 ++ on ppls thats my opinion OFC i wish to make onw svr like this

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Posts

    • LIVE VERIFICATION? SUMSUB? “IMPOSSIBLE”? ▪ Spoiler: it is possible — if you know who to work with. A client came in with a task to pass **live verification** on **WantToPay**, a Telegram virtual card service. On the platform side — **Sumsub**: liveness check, SMS, manual review. “Fast” and “by eye” simply don’t work here. › What was done: → analyzed the verification scenario and Sumsub requirements → built the correct flow: phone number, email, timing → **completed live verification remotely, without account handover** → handled SMS and confirmation codes → brought the process to final approval ▪ Result: → verification passed → access granted → no flags or repeat requests ▪ Live verification is not luck. It’s scenario-based preparation — not hope. › TG: @mustang_service ( https:// t.me/ mustang_service ) › Channel: Mustang Service ( https:// t.me/ +6RAKokIn5ItmYjEx ) *All data is published with the client’s consent.* #verification #sumsub #livecheck #kyc #case
    • IMPORTANT INFO: In a few days, I will switch to completely new code, written from scratch with a new download system, patch building and management system. The Updater will become true 2026 code with "foolproof systems". I'm going to create a Discord server for customers to request new ideas and features. FIRST CUSTOMERS ARE ALREADY USING THE NEW UPDATER ON LIVE SERVERS! Watch this topic for upcoming info because the new updater is around the corner! Yes, you can still use self-update on the previous updater! No, the new updater won't be compatible with the old patch system! A new build is required, but players who already have game files won't have to download the entire patch again! New templates and updates to existing templates are coming soon! Sneak peek:  
    • i used guytis IL project and source. i found in his project there are 3 Client version source... 1,CliExt_H5   --->this one cant be compiled in VS2005,i did know why..is it for H5 client? 2,CliExtNew  --->this one is IL version ,but when i compiled it and use it.player cant login game,MD5Checksum wrong.i check the source code,but not found any hints. 3,L2Server    --->this one for HB client?im not sure...   so my question is what are the differences between these three versions of cliext.dll?how can i fix the issue of the MD5Checksum not matching problem?   01/29/2026 21:04:11.366, [CCliExt::HandleCheckSum] Invalid Checksum[1130415144] vs [-721420287] packet[dd] len[29] sum[2698] key[30] HWID[] Account[]! 01/29/2026 21:04:11.366, SocketLimiter::UserSocketBadunknownprotocol 11111111111 01/29/2026 21:04:11.366, [usersocket]unknown protocol from ip[113.137.149.115]!      
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This community uses essential cookies to function properly. Non-essential cookies and third-party services are used only with your consent. Read our Privacy Policy and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..