Honestly, I feel like we're :deadhorse:.
My comment was in reference to what
@Ron101 stated. Not anything you said. In fact, you pretty much ignored what I asked you.
I don't know why you guys want to shut down a difference of opinion. Contrary to what you guys are saying, not everyone is dying for more flats. I'm gonna laugh if SFMM ever announces "The World's Largest Larson Loop." Just look at the reaction that SFGA fans had with the announcement of that flat ride.
SFMM is a coaster park. The target demographic is not young children, or older adults. It's tweens, adolescents, young adults, and thrill seekers. So what is their new recent focus?
Talk about beating a dead horse... I was about to say the same thing, except to totally disagree with your statement "not everyone is dying for more flats". SF is not just a coaster park, it bills itself as a thrill park. Thrills come in many forms. I've been going to special events at SFMM for many, many years where management would take Q&A from the audience. And the two most commonly asked questions were, "Are the OTS ever going to come off Revolution?" (this tells you how long I've been going to Q&A's) and "When are you going to get more flat rides?" And the management would roll their eyes to both questions because they were tired of hearing them so often. So, uh, there
are in fact a lot of people dying for more flat rides. For a very long time. Including myself. I don't know how many times I can say it, but again, the last flat ride was installed in
1983 (Swashbuckler). You weren't even born yet (based on the age you have listed in your profile). Flat rides have come a very long way since then.
That said, I do agree with
all the other bullet points you mention--except, unsurprisingly, "Limiting the number of cheap flats and use the premium space of the park for headliner attractions." First off, the park
needs more flats. Second, flats may be cheap compared to a coaster... but that's part of the point. You can get maybe 3 -4 rides for the price of one coaster. In that sense, you could argue you get more for the value., especially in terms of ridership numbers. Another asset is generally, most flat ride cycles are longer than most coasters, so you get more thrills for a longer time. Full Throttle is fun for what it is, but after such a long wait for such a short ride, I'd rather virtually walk on to a Troika and enjoy a much longer ride duration.
But mainly, most flats would not be taking away "premium space" from a headliner attraction. Indeed, one of the main points of most flat rides, aside from adding to a variety of thrills and spreading out lines throughout a park, is they can go in spaces where there wouldn't be enough room for a full coaster. I mean, exactly what "premier coaster" would you put in the old Sierra Twist space? Compare that to what flat rides could you put in the Sierra Twist space? The answer is pretty obvious. Or would you rather keep it as Pistachio Park and let that space continue to be wasted?
I
do agree with you flats shouldn't be put in a "premier" space. If there was a flat ride package put in the old Devja Vu space, even I would have to agree that would be a waste. They should go in appropriate spaces as I mentioned above. I would hope even you would agree on this point.
Perhaps what I stated is indeed what you meant, but doesn't really come across that way. And your use of the word "cheap" is frankly dismissive of those who enjoy flat rides.
And lastly, I do agree that I wouldn't want a Larson Super Loop. I'd find that pretty disappointing. I will concede that is a small fear of mine, seeing how many other SF parks got one. SF isn't exactly known for their daring variety of flat rides--generally, Cedar Fair does a much better job in that department. But the fact that two SF parks are getting a Tourbilion does give me some hope for the future in regards to flat rides.