@ redtide
1)You fail to really realize what i'm comparing. I'm comparing the user experience between the two games. Sins doesn't burn your brain out after a few games like an intense match of SC, SCBW or SC2 does.
I've played plenty of starcraft, SCBW and SC2, against very good min/maxing opponents. You do have far fewer long term choices in SC, which is the lack of "CHOICES" that I talk about. The logistics of the game are very simple, build more buildings to increase unit production. In the long term the map runs out of resources so you have to make do with what you have, the game is in essence over at that point.
Starcraft is centered around unit tactics to achieve victory, and fine tuned player control of these units. It really becomes a micro clickfest, when it is compared to sins.
Starcraft has set maps, no randomization, so players who know how to min/max the map through hours of study and research have a higher resource use efficiency then other players to help them win the game.
Imo this is the biggest reason the game stays repetative, the main reason why i gave starcraft up.
2) A player with early feed in the suicide spot WILL be able to hold out fine in a 1v1 situation. When your opponents get their two titans online though, you WILL NOT be able to hold out, even with your starbase. This is because large swarms of LRF are relatively useless because of titans, so you won't be able to chase them out of your grav well fast enough. If you don't spam lots of fleet you will get overrun easily by your opponents. In diplomacy you had more of a chance, you were still fighting an uphill battle, yet you had more of a chance to "skill" your way out of it. Vasari will still be able to defend their Gravity wells easily enough in a 2v1 because their starbases are still going to be relevant in fleet fights.
Two titans come in, snipe/grind down fleet and starbase, support fleets assist in the eventual destruction of the planet. Your fleet has to either stay and face attrition losses, or retreat to another location on the map. Your strategy will largely depend upon how much feed your eco spot guy can provide you. From experience you mostly don't get the eco feed you need to build up all the expensive toys you desire, so you will be running.
My point is that you will be running far earlier with far less then you would be in diplomacy. And what you run with will be irrelevant in the long term game anyways, because the guys double teaming you will have titans, and you will have titan fodder.
Thus you are relatively irrelevant, and more so then you would have been in diplomacy.
It all comes back to 1 titan is beaten by 2 titans.
@lbgsloan
Hmm, you are just plain wrong about balance. What you say is impossible has already been done before in this game. My proposed solution is simple and elegant, give players the option to control start locations if they so desire to help balance larger games themselves. Most RTS's allow you to do this anyways, and since everyone has to agree upon the settings before the game starts, there aren't many people feeling cheated. This will also save the developers a large headache trying to rebalance the game in small incremental ways that might be the entirely wrong approach to the problem.
As it stands, long term replayability will over time stagnate because these limited number of random patterns will predict game outcomes even more then they ever did before.
because 2 titans beat 1 titan.
@ dirtysanchezz
Yes this is another viable option, it requires people to be manufacturing new maps frequently to ensure that there is still a "new" feel to the maps. The same issues stated above can occur if a map becomes popular, and starting locations will mean everything to the course of the game. Allowing players to make the "starting location" choice would be very important in the eventual super popular Dirtysanchezz map of awesome. 
