Next Big Coaster

I believe he means filling the holes in the coaster competition with regards to fastest, tallest, and most coasters in a park.

^ By that logic they have a huge hole to fill considering that they don't have the most, tallest, or fastest. Man this place is falling apart.

When the park adds a new coaster is a business decision. Pure and simple. The type of coaster is what they will look at their portfolio and see what is needed to bring people in. Its not about having the most coasters or competing with a certain park in California. When you invest $25-$30 million in a new addition, you need to get people to come to the park and spend money to get that return on investment.

The rapid increase of coasters during the "coaster wars" is pretty much over because of the cost of construction. They spent $30 million on Gatekeeper (including construction of new entrance). Just for comparison, Magnum cost $8 million in 1989 ($15 million in today's dollars)

When did D become the 3rd letter in the alphabet? I wouldn't have said anything, but you mentioned you got your smarts from college courses. You should have paid more attention in grade school.

On topic, the biggest difference from the 90's to today is the size of the company. Before they aquired the Paramount Parks they had a smaller amount of parks to divide their capital expenditures upon. And they didn't have the debt load brought upon with the purchase. Cedar Point's growth in the last 20-25 years really is the driving force behind them becoming a large company. Now they have many more parks that could use the growth more than CP which already reaches it's maximum potential, or comes close.

The years where Ohio gets 2 new coasters in a given year are over. When KI and CP where in competition it was nothing for them to both to build new coasters at the same time. It no longer matters which park you go to.

When did D become the 3rd letter in the alphabet? I wouldn't have said anything, but you mentioned you got your smarts from college courses. You should have paid more attention in grade school.

Touche. I must have missed the counting class in kindergarden.

By that logic they have a huge hole to fill considering that they don't have the most, tallest, or fastest. Man this place is falling apart.

The coaster wars are over now. I was talking about 10 - 15 years ago when they were beginning. During that time, it was a constant competition to have the biggest, fastest, and best. Each time another park beat the CP record, CP had a hole to fill in order to take back the title for some kind of record. That's just my opinion on it.

DNA was used to bring back the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. Clearly we're getting dinosaurs. Oh wait... :)

Dead Sexeh said:
They have the same if not bigger holes to fill in their coaster lineup now than they did back then due to the types available.

Like what? The only variants I can think of would be a dive coaster, wild mouse, flying, and bobsled. The last two are obviously out, so that leaves dive and wild mouse. If we're talking about the "next big coaster", then the only one left is dive coaster. That's a gap, sure, but it's not exactly that big of a deal.

And it certainly doesn't compare to when they were lacking the giga, strata, inverted launch, and LSM launched variants.

Could you explain how that would be a downright stupid business decision? You seem to be saying that if they did that same pattern today then there is no way that they would experience a positive outcome

Even if we ignore the discussion regarding attendance boosts as a result of major installations, there's the simple fact that if the park focuses too much on coasters, they'll lose the most profitable customer they have - families.

Continuing to install expensive coasters at a fast pace is not a wise way to spend money when you already have an absolutely world class collection, and relatively little in terms of family attractions.

I'm dying to know what the other reasons are for my comparison being so poor.

How many amusement parks have you been to outside of CP djDaemon? I hope you're not saying Cedar Point fits every coaster category with their rides. There are so many concepts that can be new to us, just like MF, TTD, and Maverick were when they were debuted. Who the hell knew what a giga, strata, and terra coaster were before they were built? Those concepts were never available at any other park until after their debut. I'm just saying, 2015 is not too soon to build another major attraction if the money is avaiable. Therefore, it shouldn't be ruled out. If the main concern is because of Gatekeeper only being built 2 years prior, Gatekeeper will always be there, and be the first ride seen by everybody coming through the gate. It won't be forgotten for quite some time.

Whether Cedar Point focuses more on thrill seeking or family attractions, it seems like this is the start of a good balance. I mean, after all, roller coasters are in our DNA! Not to mention, this year we'll see the addition of Pipe Scream and Lake Erie Eagles (family attractions). There's already so much to do at Cedar Point for families, just as much as there is so much to do for thrill seekers. Heck, there's so much to do, that sometimes you can't get everything in, in one day trip.

^^ Well before they Dragster and MF were built Giga and strata coasters didn't exist so by your logic they are missing a 500' coaster and a 600' coaster. If you want to count launched invert as something they were missing lets count a coaster with a drop track as a type now missing. They are also missing a spinning coaster, s&s freefly, zacspin, a family coaster, and much more. As you can see you can see this can go on forever especially if you want to bring up types that weren't around then.

I think you are forgetting about this thing called a family coaster which would be installed to help draw families. I am not saying that adding a coaster every year is a good move but, saying adding several coasters over a small window is a bad business decision is stupid. Think outside of the box when it comes to coasters and you will see adding several different types over a small window could have its advantages.

TwistedWicker77 said:
I'm just saying, 2015 is not too soon to build another major attraction if the money is avaiable.

And there you go. The park could literally build a coaster right now if they thought it was a wise investment. But considering they already have a huge coaster lineup, does it make fiscal sense to install yet another one, when there are other areas the park needs address?

Also, the park has limited resources when it comes to maintaining attractions. If they can continue to increase revenue, then yeah, they may be able to increase their maintenance capacity, but that resource is not infinite, so it's not like they can just add coasters willy-nilly. This is not RCT.

There's already so much to do at Cedar Point for families, just as much as there is so much to do for thrill seekers.

I couldn't disagree more with that claim.

Sure, there are a lot of rides for little ones over near Maxair, and the two Snoopy areas are nice. But they don't have a whole lot that the family can do together. Even less this year now that Iron Dragon has a stricter height limit. Shoot the Rapids' height limit isn't terribly family-friendly either.

Dead Sexeh said:
a coaster with a drop track as a type now missing. They are also missing a spinning coaster, s&s freefly, zacspin...

Those are all gimmicky with very limited appeal. I don't see how those represent something that's "missing" from what CP offers.

...a family coaster, and much more.

Yeah, I would love to see a family coaster (whatever that is), but it doesn't seem likely that there's anything obvious that the entire family could ride together. Even the recent "family" ride StR doesn't have a very inclusive height limit. And anything that would have a lower height limit would almost certainly be complained about by the same folks anxiously hoping for the "next big coaster".

And I'm curious - what exactly is a "family coaster"?

^ I am not saying there is a hole in their coaster lineup. I am disagreeing with your statement that things were different then because "the park had gaping holes in it's coaster lineup that simply don't exist today". You sighted a lack of an inverted launched coaster and that is just as gimmicky if not more than anything i mentioned. I am still trying to figure out what this hole you speak of was. Two that you mentioned were the first of their kind so there really wasn't a hole in that area and the other is a gimmick. If you could please explain what was the gaping hole in the coaster lineup at that time.

As for explaining a family coaster there is really no good way to do that, but there is this really cool website called google that can show you what a family coaster can be. There is no reason for me to define it for you but, here is a quote from you about defining a coaster

djDaemon said:
It's all rather subjective, even (or perhaps even especially) when you try to bring definitions into the argument.

The era in question was the "coaster wars", where CF was engaged in competition to be the first to have the next biggest, fastest, longest, whateverest thing. If CF didn't do it, their competition would have, and that would have been the hole in the lineup.

Times have changed. The coaster wars are over. There are much more effective ways to make money these days.

I don't agree about a launched invert being a gimmick. To me, a coaster gimmick is a unique element that doesn't fundamentally alter the base experience. Launched inverts are more unique, as compared with a flyer, for example.

And really, my use of "gimmicky with very limited appeal" wasn't the right phrasing. I should have said "gimmicky or with very little appeal." For example, 4th dimension coasters are fundamentally different from other variants, but are by their nature a pretty extreme ride. Certainly on the opposite end of the spectrum of whatever a "family coaster" is.

So while not every thing you listed is necessarily a gimmick, many of them have weak ROI cases for a park that is trying to balance out what it offers.

Lol did someone just seriously say Cedar Point had the first Terra coaster? First off thats just a marketing ploy and a spin off of a "terrain coaster." They have been around since the early 20th century. And Maverick barely counts as a "terrain coaster." Its just a label to get people excited.

Felt the need to chime in here. Yes CP has built 4 coasters in a 7 year span before (2000-2007), thus adding another two years after Gatekeeper isn't out of the realm of possibility. I DO see the Blue Streak area being addressed for 2015 (all of the other areas in the park ,including the Gemini midway,have been addressed recently; and I see them taking out some long standing attractions (possibly Turnpike Cars)to do this. I think CP will strike a balance with the coaster enthusiasts and the family crowd by adding a "wild mouse"(which we don't have currently) in the vein of Coast Rider at Knott's. This would kill 2 birds with 1 stone and hopefully make both demographics happy. I think this is a good possibility. Here take a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntK8vm8IRME

DNA is in the shape of a Helix, right?
And Helix is a coaster opening in Germany next year, a Mack launched mega coaster. CP getting a MACK? It would be interesting to see.

djDaemon said:
The era in question was the "coaster wars", where CF was engaged in competition to be the first to have the next biggest, fastest, longest, whateverest thing. If CF didn't do it, their competition would have, and that would have been the hole in the lineup.

Times have changed. The coaster wars are over. There are much more effective ways to make money these days.

I don't agree about a launched invert being a gimmick. To me, a coaster gimmick is a unique element that doesn't fundamentally alter the base experience. Launched inverts are more unique, as compared with a flyer, for example.

And really, my use of "gimmicky with very limited appeal" wasn't the right phrasing. I should have said "gimmicky or with very little appeal." For example, 4th dimension coasters are fundamentally different from other variants, but are by their nature a pretty extreme ride. Certainly on the opposite end of the spectrum of whatever a "family coaster" is.

So while not every thing you listed is necessarily a gimmick, many of them have weak ROI cases for a park that is trying to balance out what it offers.

Who were they in this competition with? So your stance on this is if they weren't the first to do something then that meant they had a hole in their lineup? Your hole in the lineup perspective is full of holes. You seem to be saying that if they weren't the first to go over 300' and 400' then guests would not go, but that is besides the point as earlier you mentioned that were shouldn't look at the attendance boost that is created when new attractions are added.

djDaemon said:

Even if we ignore the discussion regarding attendance boosts as a result of major installations, there's the simple fact that if the park focuses too much on coasters, they'll lose the most profitable customer they have - families.

As for launched inverted being a gimmick, I just don't see how it isn't. It takes a concept that is just as much of a gimmick as a flying type then adds a different concept to make it unique. That seems pretty gimmicky to me.

How did you come to the conclusion that those rides would not have a good ROI? I wonder why anyone would buy those coasters since they don't have a good ROI

djDaemon said:
The only variants I can think of would be a dive coaster, wild mouse, flying, and bobsled. The last two are obviously out, so that leaves dive and wild mouse.

Why would a flying coaster be obviously out? I think it'd be a really good fit for the park and I hope to see one soon.

djDaemon said:

TwistedWicker77 said:

There's already so much to do at Cedar Point for families, just as much as there is so much to do for thrill seekers.

I couldn't disagree more with that claim.

Sure, there are a lot of rides for little ones over near Maxair, and the two Snoopy areas are nice. But they don't have a whole lot that the family can do together. Even less this year now that Iron Dragon has a stricter height limit. Shoot the Rapids' height limit isn't terribly family-friendly either.

I think you may be forgetting that most of the rides in the park other than the coasters and drop tower/circle swing rides, are accessible to children under 48" if ridden with a responsible person. I do think that between the rides, shows, restaurants and games a family with younger children can have a very full day even if they don't spend the majority of time in the kiddie sections.

When is Cedar Point going to EVER have a coaster that people actually want? I mean SERIOUSLY! They must not know what they're doing over there!

I rest my case, Tony.

DNA is now officially a "clue".

Thanks.

:)