mmmh, if things where more easy I bet I would try both of them, but I must be critic and say what I've seen:
- Praxiiz method with razor:
You can't customize nor put other packet's in the stream, since razor and ultima live uses both closed solution, so you have to wait for someone else for any mod. Yes, I know this is done for the sake of shard admins and free shard...but, I in any case I have to wait for the solution, if any, by third party persons, that's something that could become unacceptable at a certain point. I have to make it clear that this is my point of view, wrong or correct, since I could have done something similar by myself (and in fact I use a personal written patcher that runs through all the patches in a custom client/custom shard solution, I've even tried to mod the registry read and everything necessary for the client, but since we are using razor as a macro tool, we are bound to it, and this was the only error I've made, and I regret my choice made 3 years ago).
- Warstone (UOExt), pure client:
You have to learn pascal (I can go through it anyway, it's only a matter of time, even if I'm short of it
), and I haven't, until now, found a way to compile the sources, since I guess it's using delphi, but haven't found a delphi compiler for the scope.
It's barely documented, but even ultima live is...and in my case it won't work with razor, so I have to distribute by patching other macro tools, etc.
Anyway, I think we are going in a tool vs tool topic, but to conclude my post, what I would like is a tool capable of versatility and easyness of use. Most of the people, even if they have the skill, lack the time to do all the things needed, and maybe, like me, prefer to do something simple and with own hands (again, my case). If there will be a solution to overcome some of the drawbacks and/or limitations, I'm sure I'll opt out for that solution, but until then I have to count only on what I can manipulate freely and that can be modified by myself without too much hassle.