Back before the SC2 became a dead game, it was common knowledge that SC2 was more of a mechanical game than a strategical game. Here is an ex-MVP poster stating as much:
SC2 isn’t an RTS, because RTS implies that strategy is a dominant factor in winning, if not THE dominant factor of the game. But, in modern SC2, multitasking & endurance are much more important than strategy. Uthermal has been to GM with absurd strategies like mass marines; I’ve done it with mass swarm hosts in all matchups. Clearly the strategy is not relevant to the outcome, because terrible strategies are able to get into the highest performance bracket. What is it that is deciding the outcome, then? Mechanics. SC2 is in the “EAM” category aka “Endurance & Multitasking”, not the “real time strategy” category.
I literally just beat a Grandmaster Zerg with swarmhost ultralisk. This countered mass mutalisks. In a strategical game, swarm host / ultra would never beat mutalisks because you don’t have any anti-air. But, I was able to constantly wear him down with a double-nydus making him run his mutas this way and then that way. I won with superior multitasking, and I did this despite using a dumpster-tier strategy.
SC2 used to have a decent emphasis on strategy, but with the modern 5-7 base economy, the only factor that decides the game’s outcome is how well you multitask, because the sheer number of bases/buildings/units that have to managed is absolutely staggering. SC2 deleted probably 90% of its player-base by shifting the economy from 1-3 base plays to 5-7. It was a colossal design mistake. At the same time as SC2 bombed, games like League became popular. At this moment, League has 1400x more players. SC2 is an extremely niche multitasking game that roughly 0.07% of RTS players like.
Back off on the multitasking requirements by 10% and you’d probably double the number of players.