what about it made it outclass almost every other weapon on the field

The pike (including the sarissa) is the end of an arms race. Among spears, all else being the same, having a longer spear is usually better. However, that "all else being the same" doesn't happen - the longer spear needs to be heavier, and therefore slower. In addition, even if the weight remains the same, a longer spear will be more sluggish to turn, since more of the weight is further away. Also, if an opponent does get in close, a longer spear is more unwieldy. So, while longer is better, it's better to be a little bit longer, rather than much longer.

How much longer should a spear/pike be than another to be better? Perhaps about 3'/1m provides the best advantage for long spears. Thus, if your enemy is using 12' spears, you might benefit from using 15' spears, and then they might benefit from 18' spears.

At the end of this arms race, the pike reaches the limit of weight that can be managed well enough both on the battlefield and on the march. So the arms race stops. Conveniently, infantry can manage longer spears than cavalry, and the pike can out-reach the cavalry lance, so it's a very useful anti-cavalry weapon.

Outclassing a 15' spear and a cavalry lance doesn't mean that it outclasses every other weapon on the field. For example, it has been claimed (quite reasonably) that 9' spears are better than 18' spears. George Silver, in Paradoxes of Defence (1599), wrote that the "short staff or half pike ... are too hard ... the long staff and morris pike", and a similar claim appears in Japanese writings. However, this kind of claim is strongly influenced by one-on-one fighting, or few-on-few (so, in a pike/spear duel, the 9' spear might be better than an 18' pike).

Used en masse on the battlefield, a formation benefits from being able to present a forest of pike points that threaten the enemy before they can get close enough to use their weapons. This is useful not only for getting in the first hits as the armies close, but also for morale - if your soldiers know that they can get those first hits in, they are more likely to stand and fight.

The weaknesses of pikes cannot be ignored. They are heavy and unwieldy, and the soldiers using them need to maintain good formation for best effect. This places a premium on training and discipline. A formation of pikeman is vulnerable to attack from the flanks or the rear (thus the adoption of square and circular formations in defensive need, to offer no flanks or rear to the enemy, at the cost of mobility). Pikemen can also be vulnerable to ranged weapons. Thus, effective use of pikemen demands good generalship and combined arms. For example, non-pike infantry and/or cavalry can be used to protect the rear and flanks, and cavalry and various missile troops can keep enemy missile troops away. If discipline and leadership are unavailable, a pike/sarissa will not necessarily bring victory, and can even help bring about defeat.

In addition, a pike formation is an inflexible tactical formation. It can stand and defend against enemy cavalry or pikemen (including in a square/circle, if needed), and can attack enemy infantry formations with great effect, especially if the enemy is undisciplined or has low morale. It is quite unsuited for flexible small-unit actions, and it can be difficult to take advantage of changes on the battlefield.

The advantages and disadvantages of the sarissa are neatly and concisely discussed by Polybius (Histories, Book XVIII, chapters 28-32), in the context of explaining Roman victory against the Macedonian phalanx.

The long pike/sarissa brings the greatest advantage against an army built around spearmen/pikemen with shorter spears/pikes, or cavalry, provided flanks/rear are protected, and the formation/phalanx is not pinned down under prolonged missile fire, and the terrain allows proper deployment. These are the conditions under which the sarissa proved so successful.

Absent these factors, or without the necessary training, discipline, and leadership, or with tactical needs other than fighting a set-piece battle, the pike/sarissa can be a poor choice of main weapon for an army. Pikes like the sarissa saw widespread use by the Macedonians and the post-Alexander successor states, in ancient China, in Renaissance Europe, in Qing China, and 16th century Japan. However, at many other times, they were absent from the battlefield, or at least insignificant. They can work, but they're not an ultimate weapon.

Was it the unfamilarity its enemies had with the weapon or was Macedonian/Greek technology just that much better than the rest of the Eastern world?

The technology to make long pikes is simple enough. If suitable wood is available, the pike haft is simply a giant-sized version of a spear haft. If suitable wood isn't available, a composite/laminated haft can be made (ancient Chinese hafts made from bamboo laminated over a wooden core have been found). The pike/sarissa isn't a secret weapon in any technological sense.

Unfamiliarity disappears quickly. The long-term dominance of the sarissa/pike in the Hellenistic and Renaissance worlds can't be explained by unfamiliarity.

So neither of these can be the explanation. The key is likely the demand for training, discipline, and effective use of combined arms on the battlefield. Some adopted the pike/sarissa, others used other weapons that were effective and competitive with the pike/sarissa (e.g., plenty of cavalry included archers, or the Roman solution of sword and javelin), and others might have liked to adopt the pike/sarissa but couldn't (or tried, but ineffectively) due to lack of training, discipline, and effective use of combined arms on the battlefield. In this last case, victories against such enemies can't be attributed to the pike/sarissa alone; training, discipline, and effective use of combined arms on the battlefield are very useful towards bringing victory. especially against enemies who lack them.

Reference:

Polybius, Histories, Book XVIII, chapters 28-32: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/polybius-maniple.asp