Quote from LoroeseQuote from witchdoctorcrulxQuote from RasAlgethi24^I wouldnt' use Shocking Aspect without wicked wind. The reason SA does so much damage in the typical CMWW build is because WW procs so damn quickly. Without it, in a meteor build, SA just isn't worth it.
It does, and I can back it up. I use this build daily. zCrystallite#1460, come in a game with me sometime
The reason it does work better than WW is because besides the Liquefy crit pools lasting 8 seconds, unlike WW, meteor has an impact damage proc coefficient. All of your "proc skills" combined proc SA potentially better than SNS by far in big groups. The difference is Nadoes are good AP batteries where as you have to be more careful with meteors if it's your spender/generator because they cost more and have a delay.
Molten Impact .250 impact, .125 pool
Star Pact .212 impact, .106 pool
Meteor Shower .100 impact, .050 pool
Comet .250 impact, .125 pool
Liquefy .212 impact, .106 pool
Wicked Wind .125 DoT (all of them are .125)
If you can keep casting meteors without stopping, it's better.
The number of SA procs per WW cast per mob are on the order of 5-6 depending on APS and CC. For Meteor, it's more like 0.3-0.5 per cast per mob. That's like 10x difference, so unless you're hitting 10 times the number of mobs with a meteor as your WW, it's not as worthwhile as with WW.
That said, SA is still probably the best dps option for meteor builds. Reactive armor is nice but if you're running FN and high APS, SA likely does more damage. IMO the point of using SA with meteor isn't that it does huge damage like in CMWW builds, but that it does some damage, and some is better than none, assuming you don't need EHP, in which case you'd use a different armor anyway.
Overall, the SNS build doesn't do more dmg though since tornadoes don't have impact damage, I shoulda specified my point better. You're right, WW does proc SA better, but liquefy/SA/Shards/EB does more overall damage than SNS, granted you can comfortably cast more meteors without running out of AP, my bad I think I was tunnel visioning my reasoning.
I should probably make a video because it's not easy to explain without the hardcore theorycrafting done on the numbers, but the result is there.