Best Place to set up your kingdom and a few other questions

@ zykox

I like the comparison you made; it is informative, entertaining and was definately an effort.

Personally i'm not spoiled companion-wise, because i played 1257ad a lot and we had companion-placeholders there with attributes <10, no skills and zero backround.
Still it was fun to raise them and dress them acording to their nation of origin 

Here in pendor the companion stats are just meh to me. I don't argue with them. They give me a good challenge to work with, while i try to assemble the perfect party.
The high-lvl companions are "premade", and i don't really mind - although i would appreciate more options. The mid- and low-level one's can be shaped, and that's great.

The stats of the units in pendor are meh to me, too. They are so much over the top (compared to vanilla & maybe all other mods out there) that i just can't take them seriously and as a valid basis for argumentation. Demonig Magi has 138 Str?! Ok, why not - the creators wanted a fearsome uber-badguy, so they got drunk and messed around with the tools they had and ended up with absurd and "fearsome" numbers. It's all a matter of balancing and does not take the player character into account.

Alyssa may not be comparable to her NPC-counterpart, but this is a mere product of balancing. Exert your own fantasy to fill in the gaps. As a whole, the companion-system seems solid to me.

Well, you know what a demonic magnus is? It's an actual demon having taken on physical form in Pendor. Of course it has insanely high attributes, it is not even human, so why apply human measures to it?

In regard to the whole companion discussion, I would agree that those companions with a preset background should have high levels but stats at least comparable to their troop counterparts. That sounds very reasonable.

I wouldn't mind either. What comes to my mind: If you increase the stats of one companion, then another one "on the other side of the bubble" should be adjusted as well in order to keep balance.

But again, i woudn't overdo it with lore-backround. Maybe Alyssa simply lied about her origin, and fooled the "chronicler" as well, thus the canon lore is right despite the error 

zykox said:

Final Conclusion: Errh, ok. I admit that when I look at the list now, it doesn't seem as bad as I thought. So the current stats (except Fred + Alyssa) are acceptable, though not overwhelmingly so.
Reducing a few levels and leave a tiny bit room for customization is still ok.

Besides, considering that the companions are "special" and I have only compared them to average counterparts, it's one more argument for me (e.g. Jocelyn + Roland had achieved high ranks in their orders!).
Leth, a talented noldor who bested a young noble in duel, story-wise, and is just better then the worst tier of the Noldor, the Noldor Warrior. The noldor ranger is already above Leth.

What do you guys think?

Click to expand...

Completely agree and thanks for doing the hard graft, although I would argue that the companions should ultimately be better than their counterparts in every way.

noosers said:

Probably one of the rarer examples, or probably the lone one for Great Britain, a culture without horse archers.
The Middle Ages covers a very large span of time, and as such chance comes naturally. Even to tournaments, which is quite an interesting development to look upon. What nowadays people regard as the tournament is basically a fair 1vs1 joust, which it wasn´t most of the time and until the Late Medieval Period, when the athletic aspect gained more and more influence.

Click to expand...

Horse archers in Britain at that time were what we would consider now as light Calvary, they were used to hit and run, raid or scout and were quite common in most medieval British armies.  They were often used as mobile units, i.e. they would ride to where they were needed and then deploy on the ground, essentially they’re the forerunners to light Dragoons.  Therefore they weren’t used like say Genghis Khan’s army, mainly because his army used shorter recurve bows, which are obviously more mobile and suited to horse archery.  Typically a British medieval army would consist mainly of archers, you would probably see 50+ highly trained archers for every knight on the battlefield.  Therefore it’s fair to say you would more likely run into an archer than anything else.  Crossbowman were a lot more common in the rest of Europe with continental crossbowman being very highly sought after in most medieval armies. 

You’re quite correct knights were a funny old thing, they often simulated war games on each other, with men raiding and capturing other enclaves of knights etc as part of their martial training, there were instances of when things got out of hand and they ended up killing each other.  As for tournaments, archery would have been known by every knight and lord without question, of course I’m sure how good they were would vary greatly from person to person, but if you think about it, you can’t hunt without that skill and what is a man of leisure to do if he can’t hunt.  You are correct in saying that they opened up tournaments, but I think it wasn’t till later on that they did that i.e. towards the 1400’s when knights and tournaments had largely become redundant.

noosers said:

Again, I disagree. Your companions are immortal. They´ll always survive and progress. Top tiers die. And all of the high end companions are comparable to equally tiered troops by stats and skills. Otherwise, you´re correct. There´s no point in having them at all. From a pure min/max gaming approach, they´re totally useless. Especially with the personal CMKHO around these days.

Click to expand...

I just meant from the point of view that you can pick up a squad of say Hero Adventurers pretty quickly and on a like for like combat basis (other than the potential for death) they are easily better than most companions with the added bonus that there are more of them and they’re easier and quicker to train.

noosers said:

People are so impatient these days. Everyrhing needs to go so fast. If a game hasn´t ended after 8 hours it´s considered a waste. If there isn´t a wiki and guide for everything people tend to be helpless. They´re not trying things out themself or live up to a challenge.

Click to expand...

I come from a generation of gamers where you would buy a game and you would still be playing 3 years later so I largely agree with you.  If you think I’m like that I assure you POP is nothing compared to say X3, Europa or Hearts of Iron.  To play those games properly requires lots of patience and reading, but then I consider the payoff to that much more so I’m not afraid of a bit of graft, but what I object to is grind.

noosers said:

One of the best ways to powerlevel yourself and your companions is to do extensive minor party hunting where your followers will reap in the weapon proficiencies and kills they need to get sufficient XP to become something useful. Which is usually around level 25 and wp150-250, if you keep raising their strength and agility and combat skills over charisma and intelligence as long as the early levels roll in fast.

I´ve never expected much from low levelled companions and I wasn´t displeased, however, within less than a year gaming time they´re all worthy fellas able to stand their man/woman in battle.  Keep in mind I know my ways around the game pretty well and am pretty set in my ways and companions doing the looter guy start and picking 10 or 11 companions each and every playthrough.

And yes, I am no min/maxer. 10 skill in anything is the rare exception and nothing commonplace. I like to fondle my Qualis Gems, not press them for cabbage juice, and I regard raising a stat to 30 pretty pointless for my PC. I can deal more than enough damage with Powerstrike 6 or 7 and my nice Knights War Axe or Pendor Great Sword. I don´t regard 10 in every skill in the book as a musthave or consider NPC´s regardless because they don´t.

Click to expand...

This is my 3rd playthrough of POP myself, all of my companions are over level 22 currently even those that started at level 1.  The problem I’m having is because I’ve gone the mercenary route this time to try it out and I’ve got nowhere to offload all my elite troops so that I can run around with just my companions, which is why I wish I could go to the training grounds and spend some time training them for example, but as you don’t get anything from it it’s another aspect of the game, which I find largely pointless.  When you’ve played the game before I find you set yourself targets and for me that is to have a bunch of guys all decked out the same to fit in with my idea of the game, but there just doesn’t seem to be the tools for it.  If I want to get some of my guys to 40 that will require most of them to get between 4000 and 5500 kills each and that’s if they’re donking high tier troops all the time.

IlluminaZer0 said:

You did absolutely nothing to assert how my assumptions are false. All your posts have done is reinforce it.

Click to expand...

Which particular assumptions are you referring to, you mean the one where you basically dismiss everything I say and insinuate I’m some petulant child?  Have I cheated, no.  Have I already put significant time into the game, yes.  Have I played POP several times before, yes.  I don't see how that could be much clearer, plus if you would do me the common courtesy of reading the posts before responding you would have been able to see my current progress in the game from the very first post.

IlluminaZer0 said:

You keep mentioning my play time as though that is a negative thing, but you have not actually asserted how that is even relevant to whatever point you are trying to make. Clearly experience playing the game is a negative thing, and this is consistent as well:

Click to expand...

You're the one who brought it up and of course if you've been playing a very long time then that plays a massive impact on how you perceive certain things.  The longer you play in a POP game the less any of this is of consequence because given enough time you will meet all your goals through shear brute force.

IlluminaZer0 said:

Disagreeing with you means that the companion system is flawless right? Aside from being a blatant strawman, it's basically structured as: "If you disagree with me your opinion is invalid."

Click to expand...

No being willfully obstinate, and disagreeing with everything means you’re not interested in a dialogue because you’ve made up your mind.  If you’ve made up your mind, that’s fine, but then there is no point us continuing is there?  After all what you have effectively said is: “What you’re saying has no merit in my opinion therefore you must be some whiny prepubescent”.

How about you tell us how YOU would improve companions/leveling?

IlluminaZer0 said:

Even if we assume that my party's trainer skill was relevant (it is not), your demand doesn't even make any sense as the party's trainer skill has not been static through the duration of the game. Furthermore total trainer exp != Individual Companion gains from it, especially as Warriors tend to be the highest leveled companions. It's irrelevant data for an already irrelevant point.

Click to expand...

No it’s not, I want to see just how much you’re getting right now in your late game, which presumably per tick should be far higher than your early or mid game.  Personally I don’t care one bit about what it was when you level 20, I’m looking at this purely as a potential XP income.

IlluminaZer0 said:

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if companions at Lv 55 is what you mean by making them competitive.

If you find warrior companions useless don't use them. Good luck creating a Hero Adventurer army without the trainer skill. Good luck making competent CKO without warrior companions as well.

There is value in consistency, customization, and the ability to max out skills... Especially when compared to Hero Adventurer's and their extremely wide equipment pool.

Click to expand...

Oh common now, I was clearly talking about Lethaldrian, Roland, Jocelyn etc.  These characters start at level 40-45, the rest is basic maths.  For me to get someone like Ansen or Leslie to level 40 you’re looking at somewhere in the range of 5500 kills of high tier troops each.

I didn’t say I didn’t use the trainer skill, I just don’t think it’s any good for training companions even on mass, which is why I want to see the data from your game.  I have already trained 60 odd Hero Adventurers with my current skillset thanks and you know what they leveled way quicker than my 50 Huscarls and 10,000 times quicker than my companions.

You were mistaking a mounted archer for a horse archer, and that led to confusion as a horse archer is someone who shoots his bow from horseback, a mounted archer is merely an archer riding a horse for the purpose of everyday mobility rather than actual battle.

As for tournamantes, it´s rather the other way round - the more it became a sport, the more it was confined by rules and prequesites.

I don´t think archery was a prime skill for a knight. After all, the purpose for a knight is hand to hand combat, melee. Slaughtering the unprotected levies in battle but imprisoning opposing nobles for ransom.
Knights would rather hunt, chase, bait and spear boar, deer and bear together with their squires and entourage using big hounds like mastiffs or hawk, if they could afford it, than shoot, net or trap small game like some commoner would do with foxes, hares and singing birds.

If one went daring and became a poacher he´d use a bow, because it´s a peasants weapon and all he needs to build one is easily available to him and doesn´t take extensive skill or knowledge to do so.

This distinction of game in a lowly and higher class is still around in todays hunting laws in a couple of european countries where you differ between high and low game and it derives straight down from the medieval period, btw.

So even if a knight ´d shoot I reckon a crossbow was for more practical for him in doing so than a bow due to the basic difference in shooting.

If you´re mercenary you should have more than enough opportunity to load those elite units off in some bloody siege or other benefical purpose so that you´ll end up with little expensive troops just before your contract expires and you can run around, neglect offers of vasselage and train them up. Although on ~ lvl 22 they should be more than ready to contribute in battle.

Level 40 for companions? You´re in for a good deal of grind. The highest I ever achieved for my PC was level 42 because I was too bored and quit. I doubt level 40 is feasible for NPCansies, I usually end around lvl 35 for the low starters.

ninjanote:

As for your training comment, nothing beats the training skill (even for companions) because - in case of Hero Adventurers - the level of the upgraded unit matters little as the decisive part in the whole equation is the current level of the to-be-upgradet unit.
The current level decides how much XP must be generated to trigger the upgrade threshold.

So naturally, a level 30 unit will promote far faster to level 50 than a level 35 or 40 one, just like a lvl15-20-25-35 progression will be a lot faster than a lvl 15-25-35 one.

So as long as the trainer is 1 level higher than the trained unit it gets a certain amount of XP per midnight tick depending on the trainers skill level. Per trainer, as it´s cumulative. It´s one of the strongest skills around because it sums up to incredible levels.

So yes, training and drilling is a lot easier than gaining (and suriving) actual battle experience. If you disagree, go have a talk with Donovan or Frederick

Zenoxious said:

Which particular assumptions are you referring to, you mean the one where you basically dismiss everything I say and insinuate I’m some petulant child?

Click to expand...

No, I clearly stated what they are. However, with such things as these you are giving that impression.

Zenoxious said:

Yes seriously, put up or shut up... Absolute Bull****... I call bull****...

Click to expand...

There are probably more but it's a bit painful to slog through.

Zenoxious said:

You're the one who brought it up and of course if you've been playing a very long time...

Click to expand...

And that was never the point, which I have mentioned far too many times at this point. I focused on them because they are my weakest Companions, and I mentioned their INT and my trainer emphasis because I am proud of my companions. That you took something irrelevant to such heights is a bit... Odd.

Zenoxious said:

No it’s not, I want to see just how much you’re getting right now in your late game, which presumably per tick should be far higher than your early or mid game.  Personally I don’t care one bit about what it was when you level 20, I’m looking at this purely as a potential XP income.

Click to expand...

This doesn't even make any sense. You're even acknowledging that it is irreverent for showing progression, although you are oddly enough ignoring that trainer exp sum actually means nothing for individual character gains.

Zenoxious said:

Oh common now, I was clearly talking about Lethaldrian, Roland, Jocelyn etc...

Click to expand...

If you are talking about Leth/Roland and the such, why the fixation with the trainer skill? There is also this obvious contradiction:

Zenoxious said:

...looking 55+, but with most companions this would never be obtainable especially if you’re investing in skills like trainer so heavily

Click to expand...

"Lethaldrian, Roland, Jocelyn etc" is not "most companions."

Zenoxious said:

For me to get someone like Ansen or Leslie to level 40. I didn’t say I didn’t use the trainer skill, I just don’t think it’s any good for training companions.

Click to expand...

Who ever said anything about Ansen and leslie being level 40? Certainly not I. This constant stuff about Lv 40-55 has been all you.

If you think trainer is not good for training companions whatever. That was once again never the point, and I never attributed my companion levels to trainer in isolation either.

At this point I find myself wondering if you are just arguing against imagined points.

Zenoxious said:

...Additionally you’re the one who made the statement that companions were better than CKO/Hero Adventurers...

Click to expand...

As a reminder, I never stated this.

Zenoxious said:

...For me to get someone like Ansen or Leslie to level 40 you’re looking at somewhere in the range of 5500 kills of high tier troops each...

Click to expand...

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if this was the crux of the entire thing, especially when combined with this earlier post:

Zenoxious said:

The problem is even in your own words you've basically said that you've stacked trainer like mad and played for decades to get them to a respectable level.

Click to expand...

When I think of "respectable level" I do not think of level 40-55. This is why I illustrated how you could have 10/10 Strike/Draw at below Level 30.

It seems all of the talk of "bull****" is that you imagined I had some type of ridiculous Lv 40 Ansen/Leslie and god knows how high you thought my other character are.

Addendum: And yes, trainer is not good for leveling Lv 40+ companions. However it's very helpful for leveling support companions (Like Ansen/Leslie) at low levels. Give a support companion a decent crossbow + stacking trainer and they can level pretty decently too.

Last addendum:

Zenoxious said:

How about you tell us how YOU would improve companions/leveling?

Click to expand...

I actually find lower leveled companions to be a bit of a boon. IIRC (he is not in party ATM), my unmounted Lethaldiran costs over 200 a week. In contrast, a level 31 companion costs me 103. I've been very tempted to make Lethaldiran a lord largely for his cost but keep him around to make Julia happy...

There comes a certain point where level gives diminishing returns; namely when you've maxed strength and associated skills. I prefer to minimize my costs, and I imagine a level 55 companion would be ridiculously expensive.

noosers said:

You were mistaking a mounted archer for a horse archer, and that led to confusion as a horse archer is someone who shoots his bow from horseback, a mounted archer is merely an archer riding a horse for the purpose of everyday mobility rather than actual battle.

Click to expand...

Nope, they would do both, although as I said they were primarily used as mounted archers.  There is a manuscript depicting the battle of Blangnac in the Paris National library, where the British mounted long-bowman were firing at the Pickidy militia whilst crossing the ford, which FYI, would have been a battle that William Jaudrell would have fought in.

noosers said:

As for tournamantes, it´s rather the other way round - the more it became a sport, the more it was confined by rules and prequesites.

Click to expand...

You could be right, the earliest tournaments did consist of supporting infantry in order to simulate real battle.

noosers said:

I don´t think archery was a prime skill for a knight. After all, the purpose for a knight is hand to hand combat, melee. Slaughtering the unprotected levies in battle but imprisoning opposing nobles for ransom.
Knights would rather hunt, chase, bait and spear boar, deer and bear together with their squires and entourage using big hounds like mastiffs or hawk, if they could afford it, than shoot, net or trap small game like some commoner would do with foxes, hares and singing birds.

Click to expand...

Well obviously they're primary use on the battlefield was via lance and sword, so it was a secondary skill used for hunting and competition, but you don't put archery into the tournament if none of the competitors know how to use a bow.  The kings of England didn't have retainers to teach them how to use a bow for no reason.  There is a practice called "beating", which still occurs today, where you have a group of people ahead of your hunting party that make noise and rustle bushes to make the game spring out at which point you shoot it.

As interesting as this is to discuss, I think in the context of the game you have to be very careful about applying real world scenarios to anything, given that we have demons, elves and women running around on the battlefield.

Quite frankly I'm really struggling to find the will to even bother responding, but this is the way I see this entire conversation thus far:

I state that high level characters have poorly defined skillsets (see zykox's data) and leveling them is ridiculous.  To which you reply no it's fine you can mass trainer and get them some kills.  At which point you start to denigrate me and apply a false judgement.

Now if I misunderstood what you were saying then feel free to correct me, but it seems to me that it is actually you who have misunderstood me.  In fact I would go so far as to say we've been speaking at cross purposes this whole time as you keep rabbiting on about lower level companions.

IlluminaZer0 said:

This doesn't even make any sense. You're even acknowledging that it is irreverent for showing progression, although you are oddly enough ignoring that trainer exp sum actually means nothing for individual character gains.

Click to expand...

How have you not got this yet?  You said that stacking trainer is a really good method to level companions, well that might be true when they're level 10, but in my experience you get so little for it later on it's worthless as a method for training companions.  I'm not level 10, I'm level 45, so again I ask you what are you currently pulling in right now?  I might well be wrong, you might be generating a staggering amount of XP per tick, so show us!

Zenoxious said:

Quite frankly I'm really struggling to find the will to even bother responding, but this is the way I see this entire conversation thus far:

How have you not got this yet?  You say that stacking trainer is a really good method to level companions, well that might be true when they're level 10, but in my experience you get so little for it later on it's worthless as a method for training companions.  I'm not level 10, I'm level 45, so again I ask you what are you currently pulling in right now?  I might well be wrong, you might be generating a staggering amount of XP per tick, so show us!

Click to expand...

I don't see how this ever was a conversation...No one has a BETTER trick how to lvl companions except what you already know, that's it.
Now there's no point in asking a rhetoric question, just to get back at those who tried to give you an answer, even if you didn't like it.

That said, asking a question is one thing, asking the question in a certain manner will illicit answers responding to the manner.
If there was no intention, then simply clear that up, apologize once or twice (like ppl trained in mannerisms do), and it's ok...    ^__^

I think we all prefer to play Warband, rather then start discussions about things where the answer has already been cleared.

Zenoxious said:

Well obviously they're primary use on the battlefield was via lance and sword, so it was a secondary skill used for hunting and competition, but you don't put archery into the tournament if none of the competitors know how to use a bow.  The kings of England didn't have retainers to teach them how to use a bow for no reason.  There is a practice called "beating", which still occurs today, where you have a group of people ahead of your hunting party that make noise and rustle bushes to make the game spring out at which point you shoot it.

As interesting as this is to discuss, I think in the context of the game you have to be very careful about applying real world scenarios to anything, given that we have demons, elves and women running around on the battlefield.

Click to expand...

Haha, yeah, it IS interesting to discuss, but for me it seems a common problem I run into a lot...especially with ppl learned in the academics.

There is one common misconception: What history has recorded is part of the truth (if it's not an outright lie), but it's not the entire truth.

1. Saying that women weren't on the battlefield is just plain wrong. They weren't the majority, but they were around. Just because many sources don't mention them, doesn't mean they don't exist. There were lots of findings about warrior women in almost every culture.

Truth is, most historians and researchers don't know squat about fighting, so they always come up with theories and "publish" them, because that's how they make money. If they're wrong, they never need to retract whatever statement they made before.

Honestly, ppl have trouble understanding the world our grandparents lived in (e.g. after 2nd World War), but yet have no qualms saying how ppl lived hundreds of years ago. Especially cretins that talk about rape in ancient times...(where rape had a completely different meaning)

2. Nobles being proficient with bows is one thing, using the bow in war is another. The common view is that joining melee is considered courageous, which is something I don't see with archery. Even the mongol nobles of China, who excelled in horse archery, ultimately kept training close combat martial arts and regarded it as valorous.

Archery for hunting, close combat martial arts for war & fitness, lots of children for virility, faithfulness for love etc...
Skills and actions were mastered and done for a purpose, it's the complete opposite from today's mentality: Learning martial arts to bully/bully back ppl, looking for ways to make money/power with any skill we have...

So, while I cannot say for 100% who is right, I believe that based on the mentality in the medieval times, the majority of nobles wouldn't approve of ranged combat in war as something respectable (in light of comparison to melee).
Even in today's society, just staying in the safe back and sniping your enemies is in the best cases frowned upon. This is not a question of effectivity.
___________
And yes, leveling companions becomes quite tedious...but this is probably less a discussion, but more of a reasoning for a suggestion, yes?
Without a following suggestion, this is usually interpreted as complaint, and nobody likes that about a game/mod they create.

Any ruffled feathers? Then I am sorry, no offense intended. Simply trying to simplify facts and let us all move on...

zykox said:

I don't see how this ever was a conversation...No one has a BETTER trick how to lvl companions except what you already know, that's it.
Now there's no point in asking a rhetoric question, just to get back at those who tried to give you an answer, even if you didn't like it.

That said, asking a question is one thing, asking the question in a certain manner will illicit answers responding to the manner.
If there was no intention, then simply clear that up, apologize once or twice (like ppl trained in mannerisms do), and it's ok...    ^__^

Click to expand...

It’s not a rhetorical question at all, if you make the statement then give us the data and therefore we can decide if the point is valid or not.  As I said previously, I might be wrong, but if he never gives the data and my experience doesn’t tally with his statements about it then that can only lead me to one opinion about what he’s saying.  Personally I think the problem is that he’s made the false assumption that I'm low level and that it's maybe my first time playing or something.  It’s also clear our play styles and what we want to get out of the game are different, which is fine, but it's really unnecessary for him to deride me for it.  With that in mind I hardly think kowtowing to him now is likely to make him more receptive.

zykox said:

1. Saying that women weren't on the battlefield is just plain wrong. They weren't the majority, but they were around. Just because many sources don't mention them, doesn't mean they don't exist. There were lots of findings about warrior women in almost every culture.

Click to expand...

Well I agree (see below), but women were less common on the battlefield than say an archer.  However, again I know for a fact that women were onboard British navy vessels fighting at Trafalgar and of course there were “shield maidens”, history is full of examples like this, which is why I take objection to someone brining the realism argument to a fantasy game, which has largely diverged from reality anyway.

zykox said:

So, while I cannot say for 100% who is right, I believe that based on the mentality in the medieval times, the majority of nobles wouldn't approve of ranged combat in war as something respectable (in light of comparison to melee).
Even in today's society, just staying in the safe back and sniping your enemies is in the best cases frowned upon. This is not a question of effectivity.

Click to expand...

Well I proved my point by providing clear historical examples so it doesn’t really matter what anyone says, the point is valid and proven; you can’t apply the “realism argument” to a fantasy game when even in reality there were clearly exceptions.

zykox said:

Any ruffled feathers? Then I am sorry, no offense intended. Simply trying to simplify facts and let us all move on...

Click to expand...

I think you might have got the wrong idea, those posts were directed at the others, but mainly IlluminaZer0, not yourself, I didn't take any issue with anything you were saying in fact I found your contributions most useful.

zykox said:

And yes, leveling companions becomes quite tedious...but this is probably less a discussion, but more of a reasoning for a suggestion, yes?
Without a following suggestion, this is usually interpreted as complaint, and nobody likes that about a game/mod they create.

Click to expand...

That is exactly how I posed it, all be it in a fairly nonchalant way initially.  Which is way I was quite taken aback by the diatribe that followed.

Zenoxious said:

To be honest, there really should be better ways of training your companions, because at mid level they've massively under levelled for killing elite troops and get bugger all from killing lower level troops.  I know you can go to the training grounds and do training, but the XP you get is completely pointless.  I think that this should be addressed in later versions of POP as its an area which needs some slider love.

Click to expand...

The bottom line is, I don't think there should be any high level companions and if there is going to be then the way in which companions level later on needs to be looked at as well as some of the end tier gear requirements.  I would also go so far as to say that any points you spend on a companion should be re-allocatable, make it an expensive or time consuming process if you must, but i think it's a little harsh for people to spend a 100 hours in the game before they realise that actually they should have put that one point in STR not AGI 10 levels back.  I don't think any of that is particularly ground breaking or off the wall and I can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with it.