When I go someplace I want to learn the mountain well enough to discover my preferred lines and get them dialed in. I may ski the same line 4x in a row until I can run it well, nonstop. If it snows then you can just crush it and not hold back because you're unsure of the terrain. And if it doesn't snow then you can still crush it.
So, can somebody can explain this line of reasoning to me: "We're going to ski X for 2 days, then a day at Y and Z and finally 2 days at Q." For Utah let's say X= Alta, Y=Park City, Z=Snow Basin and Q=Solitude. You can easily come up with similar examples in CO. I call it "ski tourism." You hear this all the time and there are countless posts here of people following that approach. Are these guys doing this just ticking the resorts off their list? Or are they all intermediates, skiing groomers, so there's really nothing to dial in, just different scenery? Or what?
To be clear, I live in SLC and ski a few hours every other day, so I'm spoiled. Still, it's hard for me to imagine anybody skiing AltaBird for a week and being bored unless the limiting factor is their skills. My ski partner was an instructor at Alta for 25 years and he scratches his head over the same question. I find that the more I ski them the better they get as I discover new terrain or stashes off the beaten path. I feel like going someplace new just wastes a couple days because you're learning your way around. And I'm pretty sure I'd feel the same way if I lived in Taos or Jackson or wherever.