So I haven't stated my opinion yet, whoops.<br /> <br /> Anyways, I voted against it. <br /> <br /> I think that before we even think about that, we should focus on the actual purpose of this game.<br /> <br /> There are still some user issues with trailing, Tp and such and I think those issue sshould be addressed first.<br /> <br /> And one huuge thing I think needs to be done/fixed before anything is actually having drive, speed, weight, etc. incorporated into the game. From what I have learned and seen, it doesn't effect your gameplay or trials, which, when I originally joined, was told it would.<br /> <br /> Human avatars shouldn't serve a purpose in the game IMO. Simply because this is a dog agility game and should solely be that. I currently only know of VisServo that uses HA's (I don't play many games that do) and it's because you are the character and are the main purpose of the game, so that makes sense. In this game, I think that it should just be the dogs that do the speaking, you know?<br /> <br /> However, if it does get done, I think it should be done after everything is fixed on ala.<br /> <br /> I know ala is trying to become "newer" since it has been the same for the last few years, but I'm not sure if this is exactly what I'm thinking of for the site :/<br /> <br />

I dunno if anyones said this already but, maybe istead of enabling and disabling them if they did come with certain perks it would cost bones to purchase them like with the actual perks, and any clothing/accesories for them would also be expensive if it brought some kind of perk or boost

I agree with DaDwarf.

Just wanted to ask a quick question. When does the poll end? Please send me a message if you know the answer to my question.

"For those who simply dislike the idea of dressable handlers - if they were optional, would you still object? Someone mentioned 'disabling' them, but consider also the option of just never obtaining them at all. If those things were options, would you still be against the feature?<br /> <br /> I'm interested in the anatomy of your objections. What would make this idea acceptable to you? What would make it unacceptable?"<br /> <br /> <br /> I wouldn't mind the feature if i could turn it off, or not have to use it :3 If it's nothing more then a doll to dress up, then let the people who'd love to have one have em, and those who don't can just turn it off.<br /> <br /> However, if the HA's would get perk-like features, i feel like i'd be forced into using it just to get the same benefit as others, and that doesn't strike me as fair. ('forced', i know it's still optional, but what choices do you really have, if it gives others an advantage in the game.)<br /> <br /> So in short; no, don't mind if i can turn it off and am not forced into using them :3

Okay I think that the HA idea is amazing. But in order for everyone to be pleased I suggest that they be optional, clothes/accessories to be free (to avoid jealousy over expensive items and it would appeal to possible new users), the art should be sitewide voted on, and no perks.<br /> <br /> Personally I think this would make everyone feel better about HAs and wouldnt cause much unrest.

---

Sidewide would be better for voting on art for avatar in my opinion.<br /> <br /> Even if they could be disabled, if they had perks that'd give those who wanted to use HAs a horrible advantage against others who have them disabled.

---

I'd like to get some specific feedback here regarding the idea of handlers being added to the game, if anyone would answer my questions:<br /> <br /> If your concern is art quality, would your objection be eased if we had the whole art team work/vote on the art? Or perhaps if there was sitewide input on the new art?<br /> <br /> For those who simply dislike the idea of dressable handlers - if they were optional, would you still object? Someone mentioned 'disabling' them, but consider also the option of just never obtaining them at all. If those things were options, would you still be against the feature?<br /> <br /> I'm interested in the anatomy of your objections. What would make this idea acceptable to you? What would make it unacceptable?

I wouldn't like to see human avatars on Alacrity, solely because I think they would look bad in comparison to the beautiful dog art we have.<br /> <br /> Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it'd be difficult to create customisable human avatars that look that good/realistic without making them huge.<br /> <br /> I wouldn't leave/cause a fuss about it though, just wouldn't be a fan of them.

I really don't want HA's added to Alacrity, the reason I joined was for the dogs and I think adding avatars would take attention away from the dog trialling aspect of the game; instead of focusing their attention and money on training, trialling, and breeding their dogs, players would be forced (yes, forced. You'd be lying if you said you never gave into peer pressure) to buy items for their avatar to make it pretty, likeable and unique. Its part of human nature to want to be liked. Players, especially young ones, want to be liked and perhaps will think "if I buy this 400k item for my avatar, people will like me more". <br /> <br /> I believe that avatars will spread attention too thin, for example, if a game made me change the food bowl, feed your guinea pig, train them, refill their water bottles, clean the cage, play, pet them, enter them in contests, wash them, and in addition to that, take care of all the financial aspects of owning a top line of guinea pigs as well as decorating cages, I would simply quit, it would have my attention spread too thin. Sites that have too many features don't catch and hold my attention like alacrity does. In other words, sometimes simpler is better.