Fair enough. Still, I thought you were someone who was completely against ranking people with feats alone (not trying to expose you btw).
I see, so you pay very close attention to details huh? I would expect nothing less from somebody who has known me for quite a while.
And don't worry about not trying to expose me, as long as you say the facts as they are, there should be no reason for me to take any offense. That would be immature on my part, and I don't intend to act that way.
Regardless, you are quite correct, I was always one to factor in hype and portrayal, but for a while now, I've decided to strictly go by feats only
in the Power Ranking Thread since people here value "feats" more than "hype/portrayal".
I did this to show that some characters deserved more credit than they actually do, even feat-wise, and not just hype/portrayal-wise.
As you've probably noticed, I disagree with the majority of the community when it comes to a few characters.
I think there are several underrated characters that don't get enough credit (even after all the feats they've shown), so I've decided to argue more on the feats side to show that those characters actually have evidence of deserving a higher rank, even if we go by feats-only.
So if that wasn't so confusing, then that's basically the answer to your question. But yes, you are correct, under normal circumstances, I do take hype and portrayal into consideration.
I value those 2 components a lot, but for the sake and purpose of this specific Power Ranking thread, I'll agree to go by mainly feats.