It's vague for several reasons
1. There are examples where it does directly indicate strength
2. Which means your point does not apply to all characters.
So your statement was dumb. The reason why people think bounties correlate to strength is because there are several instances and examples when it does. Now if you stated that this particular characters bounty doesn't reflect personal strength then we could visit and look upon the points presented for said character. But you didn't do so. Or future reference do not complain about people drawing to a conclusion over your point when it's vague and not explained
1. There are examples where it does directly indicate strength
2. Which means your point does not apply to all characters.
So your statement was dumb. The reason why people think bounties correlate to strength is because there are several instances and examples when it does. Now if you stated that this particular characters bounty doesn't reflect personal strength then we could visit and look upon the points presented for said character. But you didn't do so. Or future reference do not complain about people drawing to a conclusion over your point when it's vague and not explained
its not that deep
dont blame him for you reading too much into a vague statement
even the author thinks its hard to estimate strength off ones bounty. he didn't mention any specific character in his comment . what the actual fuck lol
"The reason for that is because its usually hard to measure the strength of an individual and assign money proportionally to a perfect scale"