I am a kickstarter backer of both. Warrior Forever at CU and just upgraded to Sapphire here at CF. For me, both have advantages and disadvantages.
Siege / conquer building destruction system:
Crowfall addresses the issues that occurred in Shadowbane when players spend 2-3 months building up their territory/castle and then it gets wiped out in a day or two. It causes people to quit. Crowfall's adoption of an EVE system where it is risk v reward combined with campaigns and the destruction safe area of EK's is a legitimate method to fix this issue.
Camelot Unchained hasn't entirely figured this part out yet or if they have they haven't released much info. In CU you can build in territory your faction controls but that is fluid. Buildings are destructible so how will they slow down the loss in time investment? They are using land masses that are like islands and that move closer together the longer the faction controls them. Not sure how this RvR is going to work out.
Yes, Crowfall uses aim and I've played both. In Darkfall they use aim I had a tough time adapting in intense (i.e. pvp) situations. So I do prefer the tab targeting of CU here. I agree it is about skill here with aim. If players don't have tabs and targeting there are some players who will have to adapt or move on.
I'm not huge on crafting but I do enjoy it, especially when there is downtime. In Camelot there is a crafting class. (Non-crafters in CU can only repair and do some low level crafting like arrows.) So while some who craft and that's all they will do will love this - hybrid players like me don't want it. I want only one character and switching characters just so I can craft is a pain. If CF's crafting is like UO or Darkfall I will be just fine with it.
Mark Jacobs at Camelot loves grinds. He's said that the grind will be harder than DAoC and feels that MMO's have been too easy to level. While I'm sure it isn't to the level of Korean MMO grinds I thought DAoC was a bit much. I love the passive skill system of EVE and Crowfall. Combined with skill progression of UO I think Crowfall nails it.
Yes, Camelot has a monthly subscription but if you back the game for $250 you will get it free forever. At Crowfall if you spend $250 you get 1 year with VIP. Let's be honest, VIP is the monthly sub and if you're serious about the game you will want VIP. Even if you back Crowfall for $10,000 you will only get 6 years of VIP. lol. Well, at least if you're backing for $10,000 you probably don't care about spending money on VIP.
The Free to Play model is probably best for this niche pvp market since you want to encourage as many people as possible to populate the servers and try it out. Speaking of servers...
Camelot will have more than one server and you will need to choose one like traditional MMO's. Everyone cannot play together and there will be the hassle of trying to coordinate servers to play with allies, guildmates and other friends in other guilds. Crowfall avoids this problem with EK's and campaigns. In CF you can play with whoever you want.
While I was patiently waiting for Shadowbane for years DAoC popped up and was an instant hit. Mythic headed by Mark had a polished beta and release. DAoC had one of the most successful launches and polished games at release that I've ever played. And DAoC came out of nowhere. Shadowbane had a long development cycle and people were wondering if it was going to be vaporware. When SB did release it had so many bugs it was virtually unplayable. It is one of the reasons why I had to take a break after the first month. The SB.exe errors were unbearable.
Having said all that Crowfall is using a ready made engine while Camelot is making theirs from the ground up. It will be a race to see who releases first and in what shape. I get update emails from both CF and CU on the same day and sometimes within hours of each other. It is awesome to see two Kickstarter Indie PvP games in development and I'm excited to see what happens.
I like the traditional characters and classes in Crowfall. Obviously a heavy influence from Shadowbane. What I don't like are the cartoony looks of the characters. Some like this but I don't. Reminds me too much of WoW. So I think graphical representations of characters and world environment Camelot comes out ahead here. Even if Camelot's characters are a bit odd looking they don't have that cartoony feel and look. I have a feeling that one of the reasons why Crowfall had to take this route is the engine they are using.
Communication with player base:
This is a tie. Both CU and CF are extremely responsive to their backer base and community and I LOVE it. Great job and kudos to both development teams for fostering the excellent communication.
A lot of advantages and disadvantages for me and I can't tell which one will come out on top but right now Crowfall is more appealing to me. My number one gripe with Crowfall is not having a reasonable price point backer model for VIP for life. Both games have a large chunk of my money just for trying to build the game I've been patiently waiting for since 2000 after playing Ultima Online and the whole Felucca split imploded. After 15 years its about damn time for someone to get it right and I think both are on the right track.