^wow did I just read that?

How about NO, just NO. Completely agree with Joz.

By that notion Flea33(and why you have a username almost identical to another member I will never no) should we have an extreme option on the carosel at Sea World? Should we have ride option for Big Red Car ride with an 80km hour launch section out the back? No, see how rediculous these ideas sound when you spin it the other way?

I don't think those examples are great because those rides don't fit an extreme option.

But I think it would be great if other 'medium' rides had an upsize as well.

Like if Road Runner went backwards or if Scooby Doo had cars that could spin, stuff along those lines.

Why wouldn't you want to maximise the appeal of each ride to the broadest possible audience?

Well for one it slows down the queue for thrill enthusiasts, and for your high profile high drawcards rides like wipeout would bd detrimental to capacity and the image of the park.

You only have to hear the groans in the pandamonium queue when they announce the next ride is on the lower thrill cycle.

My experience at Dreamworld has been that people seem to really enjoy the lower thrill cycle on Pandamonium, there always seems to be a good amount of people queueing for it.

I've never seen a soft style cycle with more than 10 people (it can have 24 people)...

I haven't seen a soft cycle full except opening weekend.

I'm not saying that people of the soft cycle don't enjoy it, im saying the thrill seekers in the queue get annoyed and impatient due to it causing longer waits. Given it is a Big 9 Thrill Ride and marketed as such, you shouldn't have to wait longer for non-thrill seekers

I don't think we need to retrofit existing rides, or make rides do something they weren't built to do (Giant Drop comes down VERY slowly if the catchcar doesn't release)... but if the park buys a ride that the manufacturer build in optional soft hardcore ride cycles - why can't the park market that angle?

Wipeout has multiple different cycles, which are all programmable - it'd be fairly simple to program a cycle that was fast, but still kept the gondola upright. I'd certainly give it a go.

Nobody complained when Batride offered motionless rides throughout the day - nor the 4D theatre having motionless seating at the rear of the cinema...

Perhaps instead of randomly announcing a 'soft' cycle, they could schedule the times for the ride to run on 'low' - that way you'd know when to turn up for whichever cycle you preferred.

I take the point of those who don't believe it should be done that way, but if the ride is capable, then it makes sense for the park to offer both options to widen the demographic that the ride appeals to.

For a park - such as movieworld - which struggles to get a 'full-day' visit out of most people, adding a ride that offers both thrills and sedate entertainment seems like a no-brainer to me... the park is sorely lacking in non-coaster rides that appeal to both thrillseekers and families. Everyone talks of how the loss of LTRR has left such a hole... Doomsday as a double-header sounds like a good plan.

should we have an extreme option on the carosel at Sea World? Should we have ride option for Big Red Car ride with an 80km hour launch section out the back? No, see how rediculous these ideas sound when you spin it the other way?

I would pay alot just to ride both of them. Particularly BRCR.

I would pay alot just to ride both of them. Particularly BRCR.

Yeah it sounds like an awesome idea

If MW was to decide to build a woodie in the western section of the park, I think it would be an awesome idea to have it designed like the "Goliath" wooden roller in America.

I think we'd get something along the lines of Apocalypse at SFMM (great ride) before we get the likes of a Rocky Mountain coaster

Disagree, steel track and poly running wheels would be more attractive from a maintenance cost perspective.

Even just looking at the intiial cost, Apocalypse and Outlaw Run both cost around US$10 million. Given the reception of Rocky Mountain's rides, I'm pretty sure I'd prefer the latter.