I’m mixed on it. The problem is that it is seen as another nerf, making things that bit more harder for those starting later. I think two things also need to happen to make it acceptable:
1, the ability to store unused modules so you don’t incur a rebuy cost later on, especially if you want to switch between different layouts on the same ship. As supplement to that, it would be nice if you could configure custom loadout profiles, so rather than moving every module over, you can just switch profiles. As an expensive workaround, people might end up having multiple ships of the same type. Not sure I need it myself though, as I’d end up with different ships for different roles anyway, like a vulture for combat, asp for exploration, and clipper for trading. The only maybe is the Asp, as currently it is also my mission ship thanks to its jump range balancing against defensive ability. I wouldn’t want to fight in one, but it can take enough hits to get away from most. Thanks to the beta discounts I’m testing out a python at the moment. Not sure I like it. Could make a nice mission ship but remains to see if I can adapt my style to use it in combat.
2, perhaps a “preview build” option in outfitting, so you can see the final ship stats for the proposed changes before committing. At the moment you might end up with a load of buy and sell to tweak stuff for optimal power and mass. A 3rd party site like edshipyard is something vaguely similar I guess.
3, alternatively, have a wear and tear rating on equipment. This is distinct form damage, where over time things lost effectiveness, and therefore value. In effect force people to replace modules after a time if they decide the performance has degraded too far. This was also proposed I think as a limiting mechanism for ultra-long duration exploration trips.
Who knows what will happen. Will just keep hammering within what the rules at the time allow.