I´m sure the spell could be coded to know players from NPCs and behave accordingly. Also it would be more fun if it could drain some sort of energy from all classes. Sure warriors don´t have mana but they still give you less of a beating if you take away their rage. So from players it drains whatever makes them tick and on bosses it deals damage instead.

Somewhat, I think you are getting closer to my definition. As I mentioned, I see battlefield control as a superset of CC, hence, by definition, CC is a part of it. However, the reason I choose to not "just" call it CC, is that there are a few other clauses that keep the sets distinct.

I. The first clause is that battlefield control connotes the control of > 1 person simultaneously. The reason I threw DF in there is that DF is rarely used by itself. Most often, it is used in conjunction with things like polymorph. e.g. a frost mage can polymorph one target and DF another, hence having both targets CC'd simultaneously. Arcane cannot combine spells to get this effect. Hence, even though polymorph and DF used in a bubble will be classified as "CCs", together, they can be classified as battlefield control.

II. The second clause that keeps the sets distinct is that, due to the increased number of targets being controlled, the strict definitions of CCs are not the only ones we can apply to 'battlefield control'.
Let me explain.
A snare used on a single target is not normally defined as CC (e.g. when a warrior hamstrings a target, you rarely say that the target is CCd). However, snares applied to multiple targets simultaneously do fit the definition of 'Battlefield Control'. In this way, snares (which are usually not considered as CCs) when applied to multiple targets simultaneously, can be defined as battlefield control. This is also why the new ranged blastwave can fit the bill as a form of battlefield control.

To take a step back, you may be thinking that my inclusion of multi-target snares into the "battlefield control" catagory is somewhat arbitrary. However, this is not the case. As the core proof for my argument, I point you to blizzard's description into their thinking for the new mage spell, Wall of Frost, found here.

Emphasis mine.
As you can see, blizzard somewhat supports the idea that large scale snares can be defined as "battlefield control". Hence their statement in that post.


Given this, we can see that it is not the use of a single Frost spell, but the fact that Frost can chain together multiple separate spells to exercise a level of battlefield control that is extremely impressive. It is the fact that the spec has access to multiple spells which can be used together to show an impressive display.
The problem then, is not the existence of a single spell here or the lack of a spell there, it is that Arcane doesn't have a robust set of tools that it can exercise to control the battlefield. Now, granted, I am not too sure myself if the final proposition is to have arcane be able to control the battlefield to the level that frost can, but I am most certainly proposing that Arcane should have some battlefield control, since currently, its toolbox is extremely limited, borderline empty.

This is why I said that the glaring hole is in Arcane's toolbox.

On your separate note, I am not discounting silence, however, I am challenging the notion that the base spell (Counterspell) cannot fulfill its function at all. True, having the 4 second silence effect is good, but not having it doesn't make CS a useless spell that should be ignored. That being said, I am not too certain whether the silence effect can be placed in the battlefield control category (since it is only 4 seconds). I would be much more willing to place the actual CS effect (8 second lockout) in that category. Though I understand that this would require the addition of another clause based around effect duration. I'm just not sure yet.

What if Nether Vortex was changed to say something like, "Arcane Explosion spreads Slow to all targets in range if a damaged target has an existing Slow debuff. This effect can happen once every 6 seconds." Internal cooldown subject to tweaking, of course.

This actually makes the talent interesting, as well as adding an effect, rather than turning Slow into something passive. This would help Arcane benefit from Torment the Weak while soloing or in PvP, while helping it bring battlefield control against adds in PvE.



I would note, though, that Arcane is able to get Improved Cone of Cold, if necessary.

Part of the reason I'm... pessimistic... about arcane receiving much change is in this thread: World of Warcraft - English (NA) Forums -> Exciting Cataclysm talent trees so far

Put a bit more succinctly, for those who perhaps won't read the thread: Ghostcrawler asks "We're interested in opinions on which current Cataclysm talent trees you find the most exciting. ". Three of the first four posts say, essentially, "Arcane Mage is the most exciting." Post number 10 says "Mage - The new Arcane mechanic looks sweet".

What new arcane mechanic? Have I missed something? With feedback like this on the official forums, we're unlikely to get many arcane changes. Perhaps we should be looking for ways to tweak arcane to make it interesting, instead of looking for whole new mechanics. What can be done to tweak arcane then?

In an effort to condense the Arcane tree's issues that we have been discussing so far, into bite sized, silver bullet style, chunks (the way blizzard likes it), I prepared the following. Feel free to vet it, add to it, edit it, use it and refer to it as you wish in your feedback posts.

Arcane Tree Primary concerns:

- Lack of an engaging casting experience:
Beta Arcane is fixed into a static rotation. Primarily due to the fact that AM is a proc, and ABr is a cooldown. Coupled with the fact that neither of Arcane's three damage spells synergize together in any meaningful way apart from just "do more damage", this leads to bland gameplay to the spec.

- Talents that add no meaningful gameplay to the spec:
Most arcane talents either provide passive bonuses to the spec, or perform a function that does not change what you would be doing anyway. E.g. Nether vortex + TTW does not actually change what you would be casting (you would be casting Arcane Blasts whether or not the talents existed), it essentially just gives you a blanket 6% damage bonus. Arcane needs talents that mix up what you would be doing, or make you want to cast things differently.

- No way to interact with Arcane's mastery (No real mana management to be done):
While Mana Adept is good, there is currently no way to actually manage your mana. Using mana gem and evoc on cooldown does not an interesting and dynamic gameplay make. Arcanists would much prefer a dynamic way to manage their mana. Take note, mana management through rotations is currently not possible, since Arcane's rotation is static due to AM being a proc and ABr having a cooldown. Couple this with the lack of any new mana management tools/options, Arcane has no way to interact with it's mana management mastery.

- Lack of spell/talent synergies:
Examples of spell/talent synergies:
For fire: Cauterize + mage ward + molten shields + blazing speed.
For frost: Piercing chill + fingers of frost or brain freeze.
In both examples, synergies between talents exist that change your gameplay or allow you to use multiple talents and spells for specific effects. No such synergies exist for Arcane.

- No ranged AoE options:
Currently, Arcane is the only ranged DPS spec that has no real options as far as reliable ranged AoE is concerned.

- No real "battlefield control" options:
Currently, Arcane has little to no way to influence a battlefield other then just through damage. Examples of "battlefield control" are:
Fire: ranged blastwave
Frost: blizzard slow, ranged nova

- Lack of an overall theme and talents that build on/extend this theme:
There is no evident theme to arcane. The talent tree mentions "time and space" but there are no talents that build on this theme. Blizzard states they want arcane to be about mana management, but as mentioned above, there is no mana management gameplay to be had.
Examples of trees with solid themes and talents that extend the theme:
-Fire-
Theme: Explosions, fire DoTs, burning things and being "too hot to handle"
Talents that extend this theme: Ignite, Cauterize, Blazing speed, Pyromaniac, Impact, Imp Flamestrike, Firestarter
-Frost-
Theme: Slowing things, freezing things and shattering them
Talents: Shatter, Imp CoC, Ice Shards, WE Freeze, Deep Freeze, Frostfire orb, brain freeze.


I think I've covered all the important points. I tried to keep them as terse as possible since it seems that is the way Blizzard likes it. If there is anything that I have missed or anything that should be changed, please feel free to add to this list or let me know and I will edit it here.


edit: added "mana management tools" clause.

This worries me a lot.

The problem is people are looking at all the fun utility Arcane has, which in fairness, will probably be lots of fun to play around in PvP and levelling. No one is really taking a cohesive look at the talent tree and how it impacts on PvE fun.

I did try to elaborate on that sentiment a little, in Page 9 of the Blizzard thread: World of Warcraft - English (NA) Forums -> Exciting Cataclysm talent trees so far

What Arcane does have, which some people mistakenly take for 'lots of cool new mechanics which make the Arcane tree exciting' is a bunch of gimmicky utility talents, such as Imp Blink / Prismatic cloak / Invocation. By themself they might sound fun, but i'm not convinced people are looking at the bigger picture.

Once more people start playing Arcane in Cataclysm, they'll realise that having a few gimmick utility talents will not make up for all the other shortcomings we're bringing up here. They won't address concerns regarding lack of mana management tools, lack of ways to manage Mana Adapt, stale rotation and playstyle, lack of theme and synergy with talents (unlike Fire talents) and so forth. Long term, after the initial novelty of new utility talents wears off, those are the things that will matter most.

Many of the conditions people base the "Oooh Arcane looks fun!" conclusion on - pay no mention to the aforementioned. And all of that forms a much bigger aspect to being an arcane mage for the next 2 years, much moreso than little things like whether you get +75% movespeed after blinking or whether you can use Invisibility instantly. Those talents are meant to be the icing on the cake, but you still need the cake.

- I agree with your NV comment, but it's not like we just traded AB for Frostbolt. It's very useful, if not entirely creative, and does add ranged attack speed slow where Frostbolt does not.
- Polymorph stun is not as powerful as Deep Freeze because it can occur more often. It may not be so useful as an on-demand stun, but it is MORE useful in that it can extend the duration of your main CC by 3 seconds. It's pretty unique, in that they added some CC to our CC so that we can CC while we CC! *ahem* sorry.
- Incater's Absorption should not be equivalent to Shattered Barrier, it has unique advantages and disadvantages, occurring more often but probably removing the target from you for less time (unless you have a ledge to exploit =D)


To me, Arcane will be a fine tree almost as soon as our damage spells are fixed to create interesting gameplay or valid AoE potential. As Tyrian says, we need the cake foundation underneath our layer of delicious arcane frosting or we'll never stand up with the other cakes... er... specs.

So a new beta patch is up. Here are the Arcane changes (full listing can be found here):
An important thing to note is that after looking over the entirety of the patch notes it looks like the "numbers balancing phase" of the beta seems to have begun. Which would mean that we may have, unfortunately, missed our window of opportunity to get any significant changes done to Arcane.

I say this only due to personal experience with previous WoW betas. As those of you who were in the WoTLk beta can attest to, after blizzard started balancing numbers, they became very hesitant to make any changes of the scope that Arcane needs right now.

Hopefully, this is not the case.

I notice from the glyph changes listed in Akiwoce's post in the Cataclysm mage changes thread that the current Glyph of Arcane Explosion has been removed. This maybe over-optimistic, but it seems like that might be leaving an an avenue open for solving at least some of the AoE problems we have been discussing. With the new glyph system where all possible glyphs are available there wouldn't be the pressure to drop AOE focussed glyphs for single target. A new Glyph of Mana gem might also add some options for the mana management which we lack.

After speaking to my Mage-playing housemate, we've come up with an interesting change to Mana Adept, one that would mean playing as an Arcane Mage would involve balancing your current mana at a specific level rather than simply topping it up to full, thus turning mana regeneration into a balancing act rather than merely something that happens between Arcane Blasts.

The idea? Reverse Mana Adept, so you deal *more* damage the *less* mana you have. Can you really afford to let Evocation tick for its full amount? How many ticks do you need to get you to your next mana gem? Let it tick too much, you've just deprived yourself of your maximum potential damage. Don't let it tick enough, you won't have the mana available for your spells before the gem comes off cooldown.

As it stands now, Mana Adept punishes you for casting your spells, and cripples your damage when you need to offload burst DPS. Reversing it would ramp up your damage quickly during burst segments, as well as force you to manage your spellcasting against your mana regeneration, rather than just having another stat that you just get more of to get better.