I think OP's goal is workable, and that the major opposing force is a playerbase of bored, bitter, hardcore-pvp-enthusiasts.
Think of it in terms of the Prisoner's Dilemma. This is a problem in Game Theory in which two rational parties could both cooperate and have a safe, quick, and ideal dual victory, but will most likely fight each other such that either one wins, or they both win, but only after a long, hard fought struggle.
This is because:
If your opponent catches you off guard, they gain a huge advantage.
If you catch your opponent off guard, however, you get much closer to your victory, while screwing theirs.
However, if neither of you try to destroy the other, or you are evenly matched in trying to do so, you both end up winning. In the first case, victory comes relatively quickly. In the second, it comes relatively slowly. If both parties want what's best for their selves, they'll probably end up clashing and slowing themselves down. If they're evenly matched for a long period of time, I think they both deserve to have a win. If they manage to somehow use politics to keep from attacking eachother AND fend off any third factions from breaking the balance, I think they deserve it as well. Either way, in most cases, it will probably play out like any other map because people don't get along. Potentially even more gruesome, in fact, because there's a lot more room to backstab in this configuration.
Everyone is strawmanning the idea of multiple parties achieving victory, but in practice, it's actually usually more complicated and conflicting than raw conflict. Take, for example, the Tragedy of the Commons. In which no one directly conflicts with one another, but in doing what they need to do for themselves, they run the risk of destroying the long-term feasibility of success for EVERYONE. If only one person stops, then everyone is still screwed, that one person is just moreso. If no one stops, everyone's equally screwed. If everyone slows down, they can all potentially win together. Or one person can eliminate everyone else, which is most likely. (And yes, this implies that there could be NO WINNER as well)
In both of these common socio-game theory constructs, the most likely conclusion (At least, when in a game like this) is CONFLICT on a BLOODIER and more BACKSTABBY manner than plain relentless conflict. Yet they also add obvious opportunities that are surprisingly hard to take advantage of. So if some maps, somewhere down the line (not immediately) had win conditions and map design that exploited these two surprisingly antagonistic "Co-op" game theory constructs, I think everyone would be a lot more interested than they think they are right now.
Backstabbery and temporary alliances are very much in the plan for this game (The Winter example is described as having a coalition of clans combatting the dominant one, and backstabbing is specifically mentioned somewhere or other I'm sure.)
One LAAAST point of interest for this style of gameplay is trust. As far as I know, the most successful Prisoner's Dilemma AI have a measure of trust in their opponent, and when betrayed, are more likely to betray back. Being that Crowfall has persistent characters and clans, this metric of faith or lackthereof will probably make for some interesting group dynamics.
Soyeah. Just know, everyone. Thinking outside of the box doesn't mean you have to think in a box that is the exact opposite shape and type as the original box. Don't shut down an idea because it is vaguely reminiscent to the first box, or because you're too lazy to think through the consequences. That said, don't blindly support things that sound different without thinking them through. If you don't have a legitimate, non-bandwagon opinion in (pre-)Alpha/Beta, you probably won't get to voice it to any effect later on.
Thank you. That was a bit of a wall I hope I didn't do anything wrong ;