It's just because of the combat system and lack of trinity when coupled with dynamic scaling...the experience equates to ranged being more viable than melee, which is just the sad truth. They seem to have had little forethought when they made these "innovations." Some classes seem gimp and lackluster because of their utilities or limited weapon sets. Mesmer, Thief, Engineer, and Ranger. Out of all of them, the Elementalist and Warrior seem the most polished and like they've had the most conceptual attention. Compared to the other classes, i feel like Warrior just outshines them all, not because of damage, but because of cohesiveness and sheer amount of options / playstyles. They really bombed big time with the way they've set up combat and skill progression. The lack of trinity is also sort of a drawback to depth, i feel. Others may not agree, but i wonder what the game would play like had they not done these things (pigeonhole weapon bars, homogenize buff / debuff system for each class, make classes and mechanics too linear and shallow (Guardian) do away with specialization or serious deckbuilding, and take out the dedicated healer concept.)
It's just because of the combat system and lack of trinity when coupled with dynamic scaling...the experience equates to ranged being more viable than melee, which is just the sad truth.
and, i feel GW2 is more like pokemon or a MOBA-styled game (such as DotA 2/HoN/LoL): it's easy to learn, but hard to master. as such, there's a HUGE difference between the casual, less skilled player then there is a profession or more skilled player.
pokemon seems simple in concept: four skills, limited uses and type weaknesses with different types of defenses and offenses. standard concepts, yes? then you realize how much more there is to the game. spikes, switch-ins, baton passes, baiting, etc.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein LoL IGN: nvmvoidrays