Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
I used to work at a preschool and in the summer the kids would run around the playground and get overheated. To help cool them down we (the teachers) would have spray bottles with cold water in them. It was always interesting to see which teachers would spray the kids right in the face (without the child explicitly requesting it) and those who would only spray them on the back of their necks (or wrists, top of the head, etc).

Also, I think we're forgetting there's a platform where people who enjoy getting wet can stand in the path of the wave created by the ride. I feel like that's relevant to this conversation.
 
In other news: the sound cues in the last room are not working. Sometimes you will still hear the music echoing from the previous room, but the sound effects and pre-drop sounds are not playing. This is more than a one-time occurrence.
 
Rhaw757 said:
I'm too lazy to scroll through, but I thought I recalled a few posts by some that said they wanted them removed [...]

I am one of the people who suggested that.  I'd be happy to see the blasters removed.  I'd also be happy just to see them relocated to some part of the park where guests could volunteer to serve as human targets for primarily overzealous token wielding adolescents, instead of seeing it coupled non-negotiably to a completely unrelated ride experience.  

If Pompeii were the kind of splashdown ride that gets you completely drenched on a regular basis, then I don't think it would matter much.  But Pompeii isn't that kind of ride -- by design.  Without the (relatively minor) financial benefit I sincerely doubt the park would have the blasters there, profiting from what many guests experience as the disappointing and uncomfortable inconvenience of getting solidly drenched just for a stranger's brief jollies.  It's tacky and obnoxious.

Even for people on a water ride, it can be too much.  You try to get a nice dark ride, medium thrill, medium splash, but then some stranger decides you're going to slog around in far wetter clothes for hours because they just felt like it, and because the park actually rented them a cheap purpose-built means to accomplish exactly that end!  Within 15 minutes they've probably forgotten all about it, and the park made what? A buck?  But for the target, that may represent hours of mild to moderate discomfort, and for some it's blister city.  So their only practical option is to treat Pompeii as they treat Roman Rapids and just avoid it altogether, taking the amusement out of the amusement ride.  They'd ride Pompeii if it just meant the "normal" splash exposure due to the ride itself.  It's a shame.

That said, I agree about the occasional bursts of negativity around here.  I think it comes with the territory, as we all know what familiarity breeds. In this case, I might be fine with the blasters if each passing boat triggered a random thick, ropy blast of water back at one of the cannons.  Of course, then the park wouldn't make the same amount of money off the things. But at least there would be some sense of fair play, and all the budding Li'l Douglas MacArthurs couldn't keep buying their skins out of the risk pool for a measly dollar.
 
This must be one of the things you never talk about: politics, religion, and water blasters at Escape from Pompeii.

I get that this is a water ride. I think a water ride should get you wet. Maybe the park should remove all water rides from BGW and put them over at WC?
 
Fair enough. It seems like I'm massively outnumbered and in the minority at least on this forum so I'll concede here. All I can say is if you're passionate about it, let it be known. I always take those exit surveys when I'm asked as I'm leaving the park and suggest changes. Maybe they'll listen, maybe they won't. It seems like for the most part, especially lately, the park is more interested in taking suggestions from the public than in past years.

That being said, I'm all for fairness so I'm totally on board with anything that gives those little tricksters a taste of their own medicine. Move those things to the splash zone area. You can spray folks on the ride at your leisure, but you're gonna get it tenfold. Fair compromise I think.
 
I have to go with Rhaw757 on this one. To me, it's not that big of a deal if they soak me. I don't get blisters though. I see both sides and understand the points on both sides, but I wouldn't be the one to not ride it for that reason, I don't mind being a target for the water cannons. That's just me though. It's part of the fun and excitement of the ride to me.
 
Rhaw757 said:
Fair enough.  It seems like I'm massively outnumbered and in the minority at least on this forum so I'll concede here.
I hope you won't concede, actually, because IMO it's not win-lose, and also because I can't say I'm right. Speaking only for myself -- maybe I'm just unreasonable about this.

The back-and-forth is healthy and may end up convincing people like me to change our minds. Wouldn't be the first time. Please keep posting your thoughts!
 
halfabee is making a critical point here. I worry that too many people debate to win. At least for me, that is never the goal. Reasonable people can agree to disagree about most issues.

From my perspective, one of the purposes of this forum is to provide a place for people to articulate a wide variety of perspectives on park-related issues.

I believe that one of the reasons debates devolve into ad hominem attacks and "shouting" matches, is that people are more interested in attempting to get the others to conceded their point and to "win," than in understanding others' perspectives.
 
Right on, I agree. I enjoy a good civil debate/discussion. However, eventually a debate just comes down to a simple difference in perspective that can't really be changed. In this debate, the fact that the soakers cause blisters and lasting discomfort to some while not causing it for others seems to be the main point where the split in opinion is. That's one of those points that can't be debated really haha.

I do agree though about debates in general. I always say that the point of a debate isn't to win, it's to make the opposing side more aware and open-minded to the perspective of your side. Opinions don't change over night generally. I can't recall and instance where in the middle of a debate, one person said, "you know what, you're completely right. I never thought of it that way. Okay, I give in." I mean, I'm sure it happens, but in general, people stick to their guns. The real change occurs through understanding and awareness of the other side over time. It's happened to me many times where I've held opinions on things and through various debates, I gained a new perspective on the whole thing just by other people sharing their thoughts on the subject. For example, (I don't want to get into politics here, it's just the best example I have) I spent about half my life on one side of the political spectrum before switching to the complete opposite side. Now I consider myself centrist because I've learned both sides have their valid points on the issues involved in politics and I don't want to put myself in a box and take a side. I want to stay open to what both sides are saying without having a "team" to root for so to speak. That realization would've never happened if I didn't reach out and interact and debate with the opposing side and just lived in an echo chamber the entire time.

Anyways, I apologize for the rambling! I agree with both of you guys though. Not on the water blasters of course, but on the concepts and goals of debates!
 
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad