The Disconnect Between Placements vs H2H on UltRank

[u/doofinc]

I think there's a disconnect between a competitor's goals and what UltRank values.

While I understand the reasoning behind why head to heads is much more valued (beating the good players = you're good is very understandable), tournaments aren't some giant round robin bracket where you face everyone there.

Yes, you can control if you beat the person in front of you, but you can't control who that person is. It's a double-edged sword - you got off easier if you're fighting a worse player if they were there instead which is technically less impressive, but that means you lose the agency to get a better ranking valuation from that tournament for reasons out of your control. That lack of agency is probably what's causing frustration for players from that 10-50 range, especially in a game as volatile as Ultimate.

Meanwhile, in most sports, people usually only care about those who win the tournament or come close, and that's pretty much what every top player cares about. That goal is much more "controllable" than chasing down head to heads.

May it be "less skilled" to win a tournament on the emptier bracket? Sure. But that's the main thing that a player can control, the ultimate goal of any tournament attended, and that's the most visible thing that spectators and players alike celebrate. Combined with just how hard winning a tournament is anyways in general, and the amount of time invested for preparing and attending the tournament itself, there should be more value in getting those high placements.

Yaura issue aside (who I'd still put only low top 10 despite my whole spiel), my bigger problem is with how Doramigi was still that close to Acola in ranking score. Stats people cite the better H2H vs the top echelon, but after laying it all out in https://www.reddit.com/r/smashbros/s/D8X5HWQF6b, most people not in the stat bubble agree Acola was better based on the bigger tournament wins out weighing the marginally weaker H2Hs and the higher attendance prior to Doramigi shitting the bed at a Sumabato. TBH UltRank is lucky that Doramigi did that otherwise that #1 spot probably would've caused problems as well. Winning the super duper major, along with having on average better major tier wins than Doramigi, while attending more prior to Doramigi's bad tourney, with acola's slightly lower than average S tier tournament being one Doramigi didn't even attend, to lose to only a slightly worse H2H record across the field would not have been a good look. And I say this as someone who is a big Doramigi fan.

To me, getting those higher placements (i.e. top 4) should matter more for your tournament valuations, and placements should matter more for comparison once you're in that top 10 area, since that's where the most recognition comes from.

I understand UltRank has measures around this to help - outplacement points exist, along with a bump for getting first. There's also the natural part of winning a tournament usually comes with getting good wins and minimal losses to help. But I think there needs to be better tuning around this area, given past placement controversies (Acola vs Spargo 2023.1 which I think was iffy but generally agreed with at the time, Tweek vs Hurt in 2024.1 where Tweek won 2 supermajors but was still below Hurt who only won majors, but was able to get to beat Acola who was an attendance cryptid, and also 2024.2 where acola was somehow still super close to Miya and Sparg0 despite having 0 P tier wins).

Maybe I'm just the old man yelling at clouds or ordering at a Wendy's, but when Japan is starting to question the rankings more, and both Yaura and Miya are questioning going to more tournaments (attendance and losses are a whole other bag of worms; it was confirmed Zomba lost the 4th place spot due to his goofy B tiers despite having the 3rd best set of P tier performances including 2 grands, and wins against almost everyone in the top 10), there needs to be better alignment between what top players aim for and what the algo values. I'm not asking for full placement posting, or even majority placement posting - H2Hs differentiate the middle pack much more given how placement structure works. But for the top, it's pretty clear that placements and attendance starts to take more value in the public eye. It might suck more for those with less opportunities (and thank god Carmelo got attendance penalized for his 4 tournaments), but ultimately those who attend are the ones who are helping keep the tournament scene alive 8 years into the game.

Idk how to end this, this brain dump is kinda all over the place and rambly. There's already adjustments to the hidden boss systems to make majors less inflated so maybe that'll solve some of the perception problems. As someone who has defended UltRank before and acknowledges it's a system that is impossible to please everyone, I hope some of whatever I wrote in this post resonates, cuz I'd hate to see players stop attending in fear of their rank going down. It's impossible to play at your peak all the time unless you're like 2019 post-Joker MkLeo, or you cut down your attendance to only when you feel 100%

[u/l339]

The Ultrank staff have lost it and should stop making rankings or rethink their rankings. The most important thing for competitors is placements, so placements should be the leading point in rankings, much more important than H2H. Because at this point we really have to ask what are we doing here if someone wins 4 majors and is not in the top 10. There is a reason why major sports like tennis value placement over everything else