I consider this a skirmish-heavy RTS-style game, and when I play such games I like options.  I'm know the game has options for more starting gold and tower strength and stuff, although I like to see asymmetric setting (to handicap more-skilled players or to stack riches on to the computer and see if I can still crack it, etc.)

Now the point: Why can't we have more flexibility in setting up teams?  In most RTS games, you select from any of several teams.  You can play 1vs1vs1vs1, 2vs2vs2, etc.  I think it's fun to see which team can outlast the others, and it helps combat the problem I have with the game in that, at the default setting, games are usually too short (I don't want to spend 20 minutes getting set up to play a 15-20 minute match... well, probably a 5 minute match really since that's when people start quitting....  I like my games to be about 45 min to an hour). 

I also think FFA style games combat the fact that most agree it is very difficult to mount a comeback in this game.  Usually in FFA games people focus most heavily on knocking the team that is (seemingly) winning off the top of the hill, which should give the losing teams a chance to make headway.  Also, there is always a chance you could get the finishing blow on a demi the other team weakened and turn the game around.

Now I know we need maps to support this, which is why I was also flabergasted to find no custom map maker, but it'd be nice if the devs could make a few maps to support this mode.  Also, I know it doesn't fit into the whole "Light vs. Dark" thing, but I think that was stupid idea anyway... I'll take the option to play Team 1, Team 2, ... Team 8 over "Light vs. Dark" any day.