it's within unit until it use it's dampers.

the unit will house the tank, so the tank wonGÇÖt burn up in the atmosphere.

your forgetting eve is "Set more than 21,000 years in the future", and we're in 2012. so if eve is "21,000 years in the future", they would have surpassed quantum computers meaning a landing something would have been done in a nano second.

? cant we just bring them down by dropships like they r now? seems simpler

if you drop a tank from orbit then there's less casualties also by dropping the tank you can get behind enemy lines faster. by what i mean is if you have a drop ship bring in a tank behind enemy lines they will see you coming.

thats thousands of miles per hour though the speed would crush the vehicle based on a number of factors unless the power to land was significantly better than what i can picture in realistic terms plus the mechanic isnt broken so i dont think it needs fixed

the tank is in re entry unit show it wouldn't get crushed.

i just read a post about a spawning tanks on top of the towers and driving them off the edge. this got me thinking why do tanks need a drop ships to transport them to the ground. why can't tanks be drop out of a ship and then use dampers to land on the ground when you call a tank in?

Better yet, prevent deployment of vehicles on the towers...

No. That makes no sense in a physical world.
Tanks are already limited on towers and are pretty much sitting ducks with a very limited firing angle. They are a problem in THIS map but not a problem in general.
I'm strongly against nerfing of this kind. Tanks (or any vehicle) should be spawnable anywhere that makes physical sense at the discression of the field commander.

Dropped a tank on a building makes sense to you? I guess using an orbital bombardment on one militia also does to you

you missed the point of this post. I'm taking about dropping tanks from space not a tower.

And who are you to decide what should be allowed tower camper

And who are you to decide what should be allowed tower camper

Only the people who camp on towers accept tower campers and a person is one thing but a vehicle is another and the unfair eve things are mainly tactical not exploiting the environment

Only the people who camp on towers accept tower campers and a person is one thing but a vehicle is another and the unfair eve things are mainly tactical not exploiting the environment

There's a differences between high ground and buildings that you obviously don't see

Pardon me but you seem very narrow minded.
I hear this a lot from FPS gamers. I hear a lot of "We hate campers!" or "Campers should be banned!". Well they shouldn't. They are doing their jobs.
In a war there are snipers and there are lone tanks roaming the field. In WW2 the Russians had a tank roam around the German battlefield for a whole day before they managed to get a big enough gun behind it. The Russians had bigger tanks at the start of the war and they used them well.
So why should anything in Dust (My true claim is any FPS but we'll not go there) be limited by the devs? If it's useable, do it. If you can win, do it.
If your enemy can't counter it, shame on them. Even the most burrowed in sniper has a successful counter tactic. Use it.

Actually, I'm an infantryman. The only time I use dropships is to get on top of roofs of buildings (not the towers). I only go up to towers to destroy enemy dropships and/or infantry. I accept it because it's a valid tactic, and anyone who goes up there really exposes themselves to forge gun fire.

And, not true about the "mainly tactical" part. Gate camping is using the environment, as is using WH space bonuses.

There's a difference between sniping and camping. Also you think someone hiding in a corner with a shot gun is use full and dud i say i didn't use towers. Pff you not in any place to call someone narrow minded