why not give mantis tank sign?

[Golol]

i dont really get why the mantis does not have a tank sign.
in supcom the signs are very important and should be able to identify a unit excactly most of the time.
and since the mantis is the light/heavy tank for the cybrans it should have the same sign. its just much more easier to difference it from t1 light assault bots.
i know its a bot and bot signs have that shape in supcom... but in that case i think gameplay > ehm... supcom principles ? (^^).

[Tango_X]

You are probably right, but if they change it now it would probably just confuse people more, not less.

[Golol]

i think you can easily adapt to this... its just 100% more logical

[ColonelSheppard]

but...
they are bugs
(and nobody builds hunters)

[Golol]

thats what i meant with supcom principles .
i just find it damn annoyif i have to zoom in to inspect the pixels to know if its light assault or mantis

[ZLO_RD]

i like mantis bot icon, but i still getting confused sometimes so i agree with that change.
Also it may help to cyb enemy to recognise is it mantis or hunter

[Vault54]

Good catch Golol. Mantis will get a t1 tank icon at least in next Diamond update.

[Golol]

i hope it gets into standard faf beause i barely see diamond games

[Eukanuba]

I can't see why this change shouldn't be made.

Arguably you could say that Bricks/Loyalists and Titans/Percies suffer from the same problem, but I would say that at T1 it is vitally important to know at a glance whether you're facing a Mantis or a Hunter, but by T3 individual units are less important. So I vote for changing T1, but not T3.

What about T2 tank icons? I can't say I've noticed being caught out by thinking a Riptide was a Pillar for instance, bu what do others think? And would there be any practical way to differentiate their icons?

[Golol]

mabye an extra icon for amphibious tanks.
but that would be annoying for the auroras...
but supcom should not have too many signs. the sign system bases on being simple