This is a bit of a tricky topic to explain, but it is an integral part of the process of analyzing units and whether they are good or not.

The best way I can explain this is through an example. Aphrodite is the best uber to demonstrate this topic.

Aphrodite is an overall very well respected uber, however, there comes the problem of better sniper ubers existing. Ubers like Daliasan, Ganesha, Lucifer, Saki, and Phono are all snipers that do better than Aphrodite in one or more aspects.

The question that arises from this phenomenon is as follows: “Does the existence of better ubers de-value other ubers?”

This is where some people’s ranking methodology diverges. Some will argue yes, that if better and/ or more options of certain ubers exist, then the older ubers inevitably have less value since they are outclassed.

I am not a fan of this method of weighing comparisons due to how this interferes with assessing units as well as the fact that this sort of methodology only ever works if you have almost every uber in the game, which is completely unrealistic.

In my methodology, if a better uber exists elsewhere, it will not de-value another uber. The existence of units like Phono and Daliasan do not de-value units like Aphrodite simply due to the fact that Daliasan and Phono are not guaranteed to be acquired by every player.

By assessing ubers like this, every uber has a fair chance at shining, and complications such as Phono outclassing literally every single sniper does not exist.

In other words, units are assessed first and then compared within their respective ranks. Another unrelated uber being better does not affect other unrelated ubers. Basically, saying shit like “Aphrodite is overshadowed by Daliasan” is not a valid argument and will not be considered in the rankings.