Which feat is prioritized, high end or low end?

[Grand_Saver_Ritsuka]

If someone does a 2-A feat but then a character stronger then that is said several times to be star level at full power, which feat is prioritized more?

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Depends? Is the 2-A feat blatant, like they destroyed an infinite multiverse on screen. Or is it more indirect?

 

[Grand_Saver_Ritsuka]

Depends? Is the 2-A feat blatant, like they destroyed an infinite multiverse on screen. Or is it more indirect?

uh, direct?

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

uh, direct?

Then it should take precedent.

 

[NIK_FARIS]

If someone does a 2-A feat but then a character stronger then that is said several times to be star level at full power, which feat is prioritized more?

The star is 2-A. Joking aside, this would depend on power exhibit by the character in the narrative. If there are more of the 2-A then the star feat shown in narrative, we will directly use 2-A or at least a likely 2A. If they are equal, it should be okay to use possibly like 4A possibly 2A, I think?

 

[Grand_Saver_Ritsuka]

The star is 2-A. Joking aside, this would depend on power exhibit by the character in the narrative. If there are more of the 2-A then the star feat shown in narrative, we will directly use 2-A or at least a likely 2A. If they are equal, it should be okay to use possibly like 4A possibly 2A, I think?

if there are more stellar feats?

 

[KLOL506]

if there are more stellar feats?

That alone means nothing. Refer to the Outlier page's conditions:

1) Is it a big jump or drop in power? If a character with several city destruction feats is shown to be able to destroy a mountain, we cannot necessarily consider it as an outlier, for the reason that the jump between tiers is not extreme enough to be so, despite the jump between energy values we attribute to them. If the character has very few feats, we can likely ignore this point.

2) Is it a unique or exceptional incident? If incidents of a similar level are repeated consistently over time, they are unlikely to be outliers. Usually, from the third incident onwards. If the character has very few feats, we can also likely skip this point.

3) Is the event unexplained and unjustified? If an extreme incident is not accompanied by any kind of explanation that justifies it, it is probably an outlier. But if it can be explained by means of some power-up, vulnerability or limiter, it is likely not. If Superman is wounded by a bullet, it's probably an outlier. But if Superman was under the influence of red sunlight or was previously weakened with Kryptonite, it is not.

4) Does the event break the previously established power-scaling? Here we must take into account a number of factors, such as comparable characters possessing feats or statements of a similar level to the hypothetical outlier, the outlier not being supported by fights that might suggest a similar level, or subsequent events or statements that contradict it in some way.

5) Does the event break with the narrative of the work? Many times an outlier breaks with what has been previously established or shown in a work, creating inconsistencies that are difficult to resolve unless we invalidate one of the two events. If, for example, a character claims not to be able to dodge bullets, even though he was previously seen dodging them explicitly, we are faced with a contradiction where we will probably have to resort to using the more reliable evidence.

Consistency alone means nothing. It's consistency with narrative context that counts. Otherwise Thor would not even be anything above Tier 9 because he dies to sewage wires, fears dying from a fall, gets one-shot with normal arrows or nukes (Like the rest of his Herald tier brethren), despite his character and the Herald tiers in general being narratively written to be capable of fighting against cosmic level beings who laugh away solar systems and galaxies with ease.