Quote Originally Posted by Hioki View Post
That's exactly why accuracy is a terrible stat. You should never have to budget yourself around a stat. Instead the stat should become less optimal than other stats but not a burden if you have more than you need. The current issue is: If you have too much you just wasted a better slot for secondaries, if you have to little you need to find more and will likely cause yourself in an overage. When a stat negatively impacts you for having it, it's bad design.
Why? Why do all the secondaries need to be more stat = more good? Why is this bad design?

I can tell you why I think it's good design. I think it's good design because it forces decision-making upon the user. It creates incentive to mix-and-match their gear so they can juggle accuracy at near-cap as they gear up into their BiS pieces. It forces minor dilemmas such as "do I want to occasionally miss or waste a few points and never miss?" It creates a bit of depth for food choices as a set grows into more or less accuracy.

Without decision making or occasionally drawbacks, they may as well make every piece of gear have one stat, let's say "Goodness", and higher is better. Why bother with mixing and matching sub-optimal stats. Goodness rolls everything into benefit for you. But how horribly boring!

Anything, in my opinion, that generates discussion and allows players choice as to their performance, is better for the health of the game.