resign poll only able to start by top 5 highest rank player in team

higher rank people have more experience in game play , they know when the game is lost and unable to turn tide.
most of the time the resign is started by lowest rank player and most just click yes when the poll has started.
this happens alot when only few experienced player in team and most consist of 10+ newbie player in team

Rather make it delayed. If one player says "guys we are winning", some people will probably change vote, but it is annoying when vote barely appears and many clicks yes and before you have time to react you're out...

not to say 100% the top ranked player wont resign when they felt a little fed up, but i can say 80% above of the match would have longer game play instead of resign by little push back.

Some people resign due to feelings, ie lost troll com or feeling of no support.
Even purples do this, and sometimes the team goes on to win regardless.

But, I guess the majority vote resign when they think the odds are awful.
Since the game has imperfect information people make mistakes about their odds.
Perhaps early resigns can be prevented by scouting more?

Better gameplay doesn't prevent early resigns, and I say this as someone with what is surely one of the earliest resign times among current blue/perpl players xd. I'm also against this though, because the resign poll is something everyone should be able to do. Tunnel vision is really easy for anyone, and some players(often "worse" players) might be in a better place to realise this, than someone who already has very divided attention.

Also, I don't think its very fun to limit starting majority-vote gameplay mechanics by who has the most elo. I would, however, suggest some sort of addition that possibly makes resign votes take longer(eg. have the vote end after 60 seconds, and then resign if enough players voted yes). This would allow for players to explain why, or why not to resign. And I doubt it would lengthen games significantly, to be entirely honest.

quote: Rank only means how much better a player is than someone else, based on how many times they won against other players before

The important part is that it also takes into account how the player you won against was rated. It is imposssible to just win 100 matches against someone with 300 WHR and become purple through that.

quote: However, it's easy to cheat the system by lying and giving bad advice to others.

What?

quote: Currently, there is no objective way to measure a player's rank.

Yes there is, 1v1. The system kind of fails for teams because it cannot evaluate to what degree a player is responsible for the outcome of a specific match. Now, 1v1 rating does not automatically translate to teams, but that mostly only means that you have a slightly higher uncertainty in that rating. It is very safe to assume that a blue player is somewhat better in teams than a bronze-player.

All that said, I don`t think the original proposal is good, as much as I would like things to be like that. It is not a better solution in that it shifts the frustration from the top-players to the lower ranks, and that is no improvement.

The suggestion Galamesh was agreed upon in a slight variation (individual resigners being taken out of the poll entirely) years ago, but since then, we were not able to get enough dev-mana drops.