The NON-FOTM

[Deleted]

Yeah the good days started thanks to the moonkin minor glyph. I can finally do some stuffs in random BGs again.

Im leveling up a "FOTM" right now, a spriest. Its only around lvl 60-70 but so far its promising.

[Vargur]

In PvE, the pronounced differences between the top DPS spec of any class is often not as large as world of logs would have you believe, solely because there just aren't any good players logging parses for the underpowered specs, which exaggerates the disparity between the good and bad DPS specs of one class.

In PvP, you'll frequently find that the average notion the community holds towards a particular spec is at least somewhere in the neighborhood of being correct. As you found out, while UH wasn't terrible, it wasn't the sustained damage powerhouse it has historically been known for.

That's like saying the good players also don't log the FOTM classes which CAN be higher than WoL's top DPS specs, even if those at the top only reach those positions because their whole raid has that goal. Percentages are static, that is all.
And the differences ARE big, just look at raidbots, whole parses, not top 200.

Im leveling up a "FOTM" right now, a spriest. Its only around lvl 60-70 but so far its promising.

SP is hardly decent in PVE. I don't advise it.

[mercutiouk]

you mean the class that in 3.0 could solo entire BG groups? yea they have never been FoTM at all...

So the fact that for about 2 weeks at the start of wrath they were an unstoppable killing machine forever (it confused a LOT of people to have a ret roll up to them and completely rock their world and that of about 3 friends before they needed to back off and heal I'll give you that) they deserve the FOTM moniker? They were FOTM for beta+about 2 weeks, that's not quite a month (on live at least) so I'm taking that one off you as a technicality.

The rest of the time they've been frankly "ok" at best to pathetic.