I have had this in mind far too long now and I am desperately yearning for this function.

First of all I think I am right to say that, there is no way to make Tournament with multiple maps or even Templates(i mean just slight variations not Complex Smash-up differences),Right? I have only made 2 Tournaments and my experience is limited, not that there is something complex about it? But would like to know if during the time Warlight has been around maybe there has been something like that.

Second has there been any disucssion, thoughts, requests similar been made thus far? Would like a link as my search game up empty!

Now, why and what would be my vision.
It has circled my mind for months, that I would like to add little variations to tournaments. Either Team or Single player. Nothing drastic just slight variations of similar concept and size maps as well settings. For example in settings shift Cards Weight, pieces (maybe even different cards); in distribution territory amount, initial and base armies to make every game slightly different and not always straight forward strategy as previous countless game on bigger Tournies, regarding always same FTB-s and counter positions. Although I know random Cities and Warlord distributions, but just to expand the options for differentiation. Core Settings should be intact: Team Size, Times, SR or WR etc. Not sure about Luck. Basically randomization to make longer tournaments more interesting (at least for me). And why not even two or three different maps, which would could labelled as same concept-category.

Would that be considerable. Or making uservoice request be just waste of time?

Nothing drastic

This sounds reasonable but doesn't mean anything at all.
If you can change the template's settings you can change the template drastically(depending on the original settings)
I don't think the general playerbase will see this as an improvement, as they would no longer be able to trust tournies to hold the same settings.
You can still organize a multi-template tournament, btw, you'll just have to organize it through the general forum and create the games manually.

Or making uservoice request be just waste of time?

Would it take you more then 10 minutes to create a uservoice request?

@powerpos

I took that as premise that nothing would be blind hoax - there would be no trust issues, I dont understand where you derive that. It could either be fixed or dynamic range of variations regarding for example Card weight, luck, territory distribution, armies etc. To paint a picture of Fixed and Dynamic options for Luck:
Fixed would be: The game would pick either 16, 25, 50, 75 % of luck
Dynamic would be: range 16-75 % of luck

I guess thats clear now and same for other settings mentioned above. Basically the same idea of Fixed or Dynamic settings option could be used for one-Template games as well. But I see its potential rather in Tournaments where same Templates could get dull with exactly same settings. I do not prefer always making Mash-Up games to gear up the fun and strategy.

Well it is logical that every option, function you give to players could be misinterpreted or abused! If I recall, then Fizzer said in Twitch stream that he does not exactly support Lottery, although he wont ban/punish players doing-plying them as far as they are fair. What I mean by not-drastic is just slight variations/differentiation to offer little more randomization and make every game a little different.

Its hard to understand who is the "general playerbase" for you, not to share any prejudice at this point. I do not understand what Trust has to do with Templates at all: all information is public and readable.

And sarcastically to reply for the last part: "You could also play Warlight in Forum via message-form or even e-mail, you only need something to simulate luck-random formulas, do you prefer that?".

There are countless threads about Uservoice. I know Fizzer holds it in high regard, but that does not mean it is perfect. Regarding vote-farming, the 90% people who do not check it, the old players whose vote are up, yet long quit the warlight and someones opinion over public opinion. If uservoice, then rather sum of opinions, than solely my personal one. Only then there is a point to make Uservoice once an idea has support. I think average proportion of players check Forum, only a handful actually shuffle through Uservoice and majority will never open forum either not interested or its lack of maturity and moderation.

Fixed would be: The game would pick either 16, 25, 50, 75 % of luck
Dynamic would be: range 16-75 % of luck

I would go for dynamic during single games.

Well it is logical that every option, function you give to players could be misinterpreted or abused!
"general playerbase"

Well, when i wrote it i expected at least a few high-level/elite-players to get excited,
but i haven't seen them yet.
But with the general player-base i meant rather new players who do not yet understand every part of the game. We all start out like these, and to any online game it is important to keep them interested, adding too many (unneeded) functions will confuse some of those players and hurt the WL-community in the longer term.(I'm realy talking from a design-perspective,
i expect Fizzer to have more-or-less the same opinion)

I know Fizzer holds it in high regard, but that does not mean it is perfect.

It's the best we have to measure the general consensus/opinions of players.

Only then there is a point to make Uservoice once an idea has support.

It also gives you time to improve the idea before going on UV.

A few comments. First for me High level does not mean elite. If you meant the "/" as separation then again hard to understand what one means by Elite - ladders, clot, time being here stats etc.

Yes design and simplicity is high-priority. And still for many new and younger players Warlight seems rather complex. Thats why we have Tutorial, Single player here. Also Levels and unlockables are some-what guide and trajectory to perfect ones understanding of gameplay.* Although it seems most people see it as measure of skill. I would encourage Fizzer and WL-Team to write their official understanding of Settings and with every unlockable (regarding cards and Template-settings) they could understand what is a norm and how to use these functions aside of having only description available in Warlight-Wiki. I do not mean that there is only one way or Dogmatic view how to use different settings together or aprt, just majority of playerbase in my humble opinion needs course for Template making.

Regarding my suggested function. Again rather small part or older-experienced players will take part in Tournaments and even smaller part gets into making them. Levels and Unlockables are good guide how to advance and perfect ones understanding and skill in Warlight (This is again totally another thread :) sorry about that). If a rookie gets excited and plays 10 lottery-games a day for a week and figuers out after reaching lvl 50, that there are so many ladders, CLOT, LD, priority cards etc and still after a 300th game does not know how to take in SR 0% Luck game neutral of 2 territory with 1 and 2 armies? (I really have seen those players, but I would not like to shed criticism as I hope and believe Warlight is played in high age range) I do not think Warlight community will loose in longer run having player like that to draw back due to playing for wrong causes. All new players I have invited, gotten into warlight I have made them clear that, Start with tutorial, take few games in Single-player, read aside about every function you do not understand in Wiki or write me - and then join only games you fully understand the settings and advance on.

Thats why I support achievments rather as a study book, tests, practice-test games for different settings. Not just beat level X player, be in game of X players and so on. And unlockables to be awards-rewards. For example WR games and priority cards, so a player would know what they are, how to use them - and level to derive from rather from them than lottery games to evalute players better. Or even a certificate-badge like things, which has proven to be effective in other games distinquishing players of knowledge-experience from random-rushers-quitters.

Its a matter of a system, not how much functions-complex options we have. I never felt overwhelmed by various settings. I just did not used them till I learned how they work. Simple as that. Even now for me there are a lot of cards and game-modes I have not tried due to limit of time - like LD and its depth strategy. But will look forward to it.

I do not want to be picky and pedant. But only voting FOR is not much a consensus or experssion of opinion. OR having 3-votes and Farm-accounting. I would prefer real occasional voting, options by Fizzer of Things he really considers doing to reflect real state of things.