Hei folks,
i played sc1, wc2 &3, sc2, AoE 2 and some other rts games.
Have you seen this video?
I think its a good starting point to a discussion about the balance of sc2 as an rts game.
I don’t mean “this unit is better then this” neither do i want to speak about “which is the best rts game”. I think due to patches and the 3 game release of sc2, the game has evolved to a point where its less a “all time classic” then sc1.
Why?
Early, mid and late game timing.
I know that esports lives from its viewers and fan base, hence one game in sc2 has to have a certain amount of action.
We have cheese, we have all ins, we have timing attacks and we have the late game with static defence, tier 3 units and so on.
So this should give players the opportunity to play a diverse set of matches, right?
I don’t think so. In my opinion sc2 has a meta and this meta gets followed by most of the pro gamers, sometimes the meta shifts due to patches or new strategies being discovered.
But why since Legacy of the Void are a majority of the games over after 12 min?
I think it has to do with the fast economy mentioned in the video (link above).
So one either goes full macro and tries to survive or one goes for timing attacks most lately happening when you max out. That maxing out stage for me is super early (also depending on what units you max out) but a normal game one can max out with his dream composition way earlier then in sc bw.
The point is shouldn’t sc2 be about all the strategies?
The early game, mid game and late game, like in sc bw?
So that we as a the players can enjoy a bigger variety of games and need to adapt to all the phases.
Hypothesis:
I think due to the reasons mentioned above sc2 has become an rts where cheese, timing attacks and early maxed out compositions and arriving at tier 3 is super fast and hence leads to quick games where less strategies are available.
What do you think?
Let me know 
Greeting, Tobi