This may surprise many people in this thread, but the game hasn't been spoiled by those "crying".
It is obvious some features were too bothersome or hidden within the game and were done away with in favour of making the game better for the majority - effectively, streamlining the game for a better gaming experience.
No one wants to spend the only 1 or 3 hours a night they have (after being at work all day, etc, etc, life) fixing their ship's in intricate time-consuming ways.
The majority of players play the game because it is a game - it is not "dangerous real life simulator".
Sure, I like some aspects of it feeling a bit like it, the seriousness of the game, but if this game was seriously over-developing maintaining your ship, fueling your ship, re-arming your ship, the game still wouldn't have left beta and would be like Star Citizen: Forever.
There's another space sim doing that exact same thing at the moment (name escapes me), but watching people play that game on youtube is just painful - it took one guy several hours just to work out how to get outside a station and even remotely use his ship because everything was "hands on" - everything.
If Elite was like that, the game wouldn't be the success it is now - and it already has a steep learning curve to contend with.
Sometimes, simple is best. I think Frontier have done a great job so far, and the amount of science already piled into it has taught me a great deal - it is a very educational game once you learn how to play it properly - a lot of stuff raised in this thread is really pretty trivial and no other space sim has pulled it off successfully in the way of sales and media recognition. You don't get mass reviews from an overly complicated game that people will just get refunded after getting really frustrated within the first 2 hours of playing it.
To me it is not about adding difficulty or frustraction for "realism"
Maintence and running costs can still be a button push in my books (I just assume it happens off screen when I am not playing for my immerison needs)
It was about different running costs for different ships based on whether they were in game called high performance or not
the prime Example was the Type 7 and the Clipper, oft debated on the forums
Both were in the same price bracket but the Clipper shining in so many ways.
But the Lakon Type 7 had a tiny mainence bill compared to the Clipper.
Which mean the Type 7 could carry less profitable cargo and still make a good profit where as the Clipper Cmdr would focus on the best profits per ton to off set those higher running cost.
When combine with the time Players had greater effects on the market and systems supplys could become short without a CG and the Clipper Cdrms would focus on the high profit items and move on quickly when that niche dried up, where as the Lakon Cmdrs, could continue with the less profitable items, which had a great supply.
Ideally it isnt a "struggle to begin with and forgotten after 2 hours" but a factor one takes account of in ones over all strategy and plans, not crippling but not to be ignored if you want the optium apporach,a nd would create a more dyamnic apporach to trading.
Just as Zorg Petersens Hauler and Adder being low Mainence low cost Trader and Multi Role to compete with the more expense to run Falcon Delacy Cobra even if they are still not a match for her on paper they are so cheap to run they became otpiosn at the begining.
It is about making choices and options more meaning but in a way that is not restrictive over call, as you could just eat the extra running costs if you didnt care about minmising costs and maximising profits to that extent.
