Maybe you arent reading my posts. I am in a progression pve guild. I have top end pve gear. Bolster is making my gear better than someone in pvp gear. That is stupid. As someone who is getting an advantage, I am big enough to say, its unfair that I have an advantage in pvp that I did not earn in pvp. PvP gear > PvE gear. It is really simple.
They've said that this is a bug, which sounds about right to me. If Underworld gear were designed to be better than Conqueror, I would be leading the charge to burn down the game studio. This is due to be fixed though, along with the mod bolstering trick.
Ideally, I would like to see top-tier PvE gear provide an appreciable advantage in PvP over entry-level 55 gear (e.g. level 66 mods), but still worse than Partisan gear by a small margin. I don't want there to be a *dramatic* gear gap between Conqueror and entry level 55 gear, but there should certainly be an advantage.
A lot of your complaints should be directed to the way BW set up wzs. They are completely unfair and the least of that reason is "gear". The biggest reason is pre-made v pugs. When we hare 8 people in mumble, we are likely going to coordinate better than 8 randoms from the street. Even if some of those randoms have great gear, we can coordinate and take care of them.
I agree with this. I think a lot of the gear problems could have been resolved by a) having higher server pops (thus a larger queuing pool), and b) forcing some level of gear parity in the matchmaking system. Biasing the system to only match premades with premades would also be super-nice (though they claimed quite a while ago that this is already in place).
As for your last question, the same reason why someone in a pve raid may get gear even though the rest of the group did all the work.
Sure, but that's more analogous to someone queuing with a really good premade. I can *solo* queue into PvP, lose every match, get zero damage, protection or healing and still get a full set of Conqueror. While I think a good ops group could pull someone through to full Arkanian at this point, it's not really possible (with current gear levels) to twink someone to a full Underworld set.
I have yet to see 1 legitimate argument for why my pve gear should be better than pvp gear. Even if it was only 1% better than pve gear, at least you could argue that "better is better". But when the gear is worse, what can you argue?
It *shouldn't* be better in warzones. I also think it shouldn't be better in open world PvP, but that's a technically harder problem to solve. I do think that PvE gear needs to be better for PvE content, which is essentially *everything* except for warzones and open world encounters. If PvP gear were better (or even at parity), then the easiest path to PvE gear would be sitting in warzones and doing nothing, which is what people did prior to 1.2.
Would you be okay if pvp gear was better than pve gear?
No, but as mentioned, that's a bug.
I also want to reemphasize that I really don't like the fact that bolster is in play in ranked warzones. Gear should be a significant element of ranked warzones, because you're going up against the best of the best who have already ground and min-maxed their gear. The fact that I can queue into a ranked warzone with a group of PvE geared players is *fun* (and something that I will be doing), but I don't really like it from a game design perspective.