I do not see how a misrepresented you (and even if I did it was not intentional).
I used a questions mark exactly because I was unsure if you post was questioning weather the Pathfinder XP value is not too low. From this response I have to guess that you agree that it is to low (or at least you do not disagree) which is the point of the original post.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume english is not your first language.
Are you seriously going to compare the combat efficiency of pioneers and Pathfinders?
Your question isn't a real request for clarification otherwise it would be stated like this: "What do you mean by(insert statement I made)?" or "Could you explain the relevance of(insert statement I made)?"
Instead your question implies a taken action, that being "comparing the combat efficiency of pioneers and Pathfinders" and "are you seriously
" is an indicator of this. Adding that "seriously" qualification indicates that the person asking understands what has been said, and is only asking for confirmation the other party isn't joking.
If the full question itself is VALID, then the response should either be
"Yes, I am SERIOUSLY
comparing the combat efficiency of pioneers and pathfinders." or
"No, I am only JOKINGLY
comparing the combat efficiency of pioneers and pathfinders.
Neither of which is what I did.
You could easily have re-framed the question like this:
"So how would you compare the overall combat efficiency of pios and PFs then?"
The XP value of Pathfinder is simply too low.
Nowhere in my post did I mention xp values, there is no point in bringing it up in a direct response to me unless it relates to your actual criticism of my post. For example.
"Even though pioneers have an advantage at close range, at most relevant ranges pathfinders beat them. This, coupled with the fact that pathfinders have a very low exp value and weapon racks, allows them to vet up quite a bit faster."