It isn't so much the team/developers who needed to tour the park, it's the "suits" or executives who approved and signed off on these changes. They didn't visit the parks and try to experience what it would really be like for the average visiting family.
It's one thing to sit in a committee and convince yourself and the other nodders and yes-men that the pain of being restricted to only 1 headliner attraction per day would be totally offset by the hugely fantastic advantage of being able to plan your rides 60 days in advance. But suppose as an entirely simulated exercise you took one of these high-paid execs and made him (or her) actually sit down and book their family vacation for a busy time of year and decide exactly which 3 or 4 rides, in what order, at what time, on exactly what days they would like to experience. And if they didn't do it at midnight on the 60th day, a flunky should have told them, "Ah, ok boss, but under the new system you probably won't get on the latest attractions ... and, um, by the way ... you probably won't get on both Soarin' and Test Track unless you ride on Figment and watch Captain EO first."
Then the flunky could have followed the exec around the park on their simulated touring day and told them, "Um, yeah there's always the standby queue for Test Track but, uh, you see, uh, 90% of the seats are reserved for people who booked it at the 60 day window so in order for our test to be realistic, you'll have to stand here for 80 minutes then we can ride it."
Without spending a dime on the new system, other than writing the functional specifications describing the behavior of the system and outlining the required user inputs, Mr. or Ms. Exec could have absolutely figured out how guests would experience the changes and which brilliant ideas were actually smart and which ones are completely dumb.
But Nooooooooo!!!!! They didn't do that. Too bad. But hey, that's what golden parachutes are for!!!![]()
I cant imagie anyone actualy tried this out