Maybe. Not really relevant here though, since nobody is on the side of "too much convenience" here. I mean, XYZ teleportation isn't even on the table. If it were then it would be in already. They're halfway there, they won't have to reinvent any wheels to implement it, but it's by no means implemented yet. It is a strawman because it's a non-problem. It could be a problem, but it's too easy to resolve to actually consider it a reasonable problem. Again, it's like saying "but what if you could rez instantly whenever you wanted?!" It's not something worth getting worked up about because by hook or by crook, it's not going to be happening. If they could not reasonably resolve the JP issue then they would not have flight, but there are too many perfectly valid ways of resolving it that considering that they can't is just preposterous. So. . . in other words, "I don't like flying mounts. They are stinky and I don't want them?" Look, I can't make you like them, nor do I care to. I can't really expect to change your personal opinion any more than you can change mine. All I'm interested is in settling the rational arguments, not the irrational ones. If there are rational, objective problems that flight could cause, then I would like to resolve those, and I believe I have done so to at least a satisfactory level. There may be better ways to resolve them while keeping flight fun and functional, and Carbine could solve them in completely different ways than I have and that would be fine. Basically, there are two elements to this discussion, "why I do/don't like flight," and "why flight would be good/bad for the game."The former element is purely a personal reacton, there's absolutely no point discussing it because that reaction is mostly fixed, at least until we get to try out the system they offer. The latter element is one where substantive discussion can take place, because if there are functional and objective problems that flight might present, it's worth figuring out functional and objective solutions to those problems. I believe we have managed this, so that it all boils down to "Ok, it wouldn't in any way harm the game, but I still don't like it." Depends on how the terrain is laid out and how you can traverse it. If there are a lot of pointless box canyons, and on foot you have no way of scaling them, then yeah, flight is probably faster when cutting across them. If the terrain is relatively flat, it wouldn't. I mean, if you take every map in GW2 and allowed flight in them, and tried to travel from one corner to the other, 100% speed flight would be significantly faster than jogging on maybe 10% of the maps, slightly faster on maybe half or more, but for the most part significant detours are not all that necessary to avoid terrain. If flight moved at 90% run speed, or if the runner had Swiftness, they would likely reach their destinations faster on most maps. Personally I think they should use the same balance as the many flight-capable superhero MMOs, in that fliers are faster than jogging, but super speed (ground mounts) are much faster than either. I think that alone is plenty of reason. Being able to turn on autopilot between destinations is a very useful element to have available. That's one problem I have with getting around in GW2 (without using Waypoints), that you can turn on auto-run and move around with relative convenience, but you still have to pay attention. It's neither engaging enough to actually be fun, nor mindless enough that I can look away and do other things with my attention, which is the worst of both worlds. If travel from A to B is not the most fun part of the game (and out of dozens of MMOs I've never found a single one where it is, except for DCUO and CO, I guess), then the game should try to make it convenient instead.