Item Levels

[Zhronne]

Yes but that would mean changing the amount and type of data concerning that packet, and they said in the past they have no intention to do that.
Altough I would agree with you if you were to say that such a statement doesn't really mean anything, given their lack of coherence...

I was just saying that if we assume for a moment that they truly, REALLY don't want to change packet data (maybe it's really an old and core-part of the system full of spaghetti uncommented code and they don't really want to mess with that?) then they have no way to achieve such a goal.

Either way I don't see the problem, why bothering with complicated (?) solutions when they could just make it viewable during /check and make everybody happy without changing the game "philosophy" of having to check a monster and without having to spend more than 30mins of human resources to do that, instead of wasting time in crappy systems like the one mentioned in the first post of this thread?

[FrankReynolds]

Yes but that would mean changing the amount and type of data concerning that packet, and they said in the past they have no intention to do that.
Altough I would agree with you if you were to say that such a statement doesn't really mean anything, given their lack of coherence...

I was just saying that if we assume for a moment that they truly, REALLY don't want to change packet data (maybe it's really an old and core-part of the system full of spaghetti uncommented code and they don't really want to mess with that?) then they have no way to achieve such a goal.

Either way I don't see the problem, why bothering with complicated (?) solutions when they could just make it viewable during /check and make everybody happy without changing the game "philosophy" of having to check a monster and without having to spend more than 30mins of human resources to do that, instead of wasting time in crappy systems like the one mentioned in the first post of this thread?

You're over thinking it. They can simply change the monster names from things like "Gigantobuggard" to things like "Gigantobuggard - level 73".

No need to make changes to packets, data, etc. that are sent to the client.

[Traxus]

Yes but that would mean changing the amount and type of data concerning that packet, and they said in the past they have no intention to do that.
Altough I would agree with you if you were to say that such a statement doesn't really mean anything, given their lack of coherence...

I was just saying that if we assume for a moment that they truly, REALLY don't want to change packet data (maybe it's really an old and core-part of the system full of spaghetti uncommented code and they don't really want to mess with that?) then they have no way to achieve such a goal.

Either way I don't see the problem, why bothering with complicated (?) solutions when they could just make it viewable during /check and make everybody happy without changing the game "philosophy" of having to check a monster and without having to spend more than 30mins of human resources to do that, instead of wasting time in crappy systems like the one mentioned in the first post of this thread?

Late reply, but they already do send monster level to the client, it just isn't displayed. You can see it with THIRD PARTY TOOLS. From what I hear anyway.

[Zhronne]

Late reply, but they already do send monster level to the client, it just isn't displayed. You can see it with THIRD PARTY TOOLS. From what I hear anyway.

As far as I know that data is sent to the client only during a Check command, not with the rest of the data that gets normally sent from server to client.