This question is mainly for the PvP / conquest crowd:
Would you still enjoy unrestricted PvP if it had extreme consequences for all players, like perma death and settlements getting completely burned to the ground? Or do you think this gets in the way of having "fun" by simply running around and fighting each other?
The basic concept is simple: Realism. There are barely any restrictions at all, but the game mechanics make sure that war and violence are just as devastating as in RL. If you go to war, you'll probably get killed sooner or later, and that was that. Two tribes escalating war might completely wipe each other off the map. Naturally, you should really really know what you're doing when starting a fight, or your PvP-fun will be kinda short-lived. This is also how the amount of wars and crime is balanced: It's very risky and only pays off in certain situations. Well, you get the idea.
A little background:
I made this poll a while ago, suggesting a similar system of extreme consequences used by Haven & Hearth and Salem. Apparently, most players didn't like it much, but few posted their reasons. Also, all the confusion about Xyson's PvP rendered the poll kinda invalid anyway...