Obviously a prerequisite to emphasizing non-DPS roles would be to make sure that they would be worthwhile. GW2's entire problem with combat is that there is no point in having non-DPS roles. Since everyone is healing themselves, there is no reason for anyone to do anything but damage (and self-heal).
(Now when I said "obviously", I really mean that literally. It is obivous to anyone who knows anything about GW2's mechanics. You might choose to not see it, but that doesn't make it less obvious.)
Look at GW1, or any classic-trinity game: what creates other roles is necessity. If WoW allowed you to skip the healer and put in one more DPS, that would happen. If it also allowed you to skip the tank and put in yet another DPS, that would also happen. And that is exactly what has happened in GW2.
There is no necessity of any other role, so other roles doesn't exist, since they would slow down the team.
The only way to "fix" GW2's combat is to make sure teams of all-DPS characters (or rather, all-nonspecialized characters) fail completing content. And then make it possible to specialize characters for healing, cc and DPS (to make up for the lost slot DPS), and possibly for other roles. When I say "specialize" I mean to the extent that these characters would be very poor at anything but their main job.
That would imply a large number of changes to the core design of the combat system, and indeed to almost everything else about the game.
Char creation in DDO is very complicated, will i face much of the same hard choices here?
Not really. It's mostly about making a character that looks good. You get some question during creation that decides some of the initial quests, but nothing more.
Also, i play basically a ranged tank (high dps focus on ranged, high armour class and lots of hp) what would you recommened i start off with?
Make a warrior and get a bow as soon as possible. You should feel at home.
From researching a bit i gather i can be all classes, whatever i want basically, are there any limits to that?
Each character can only be a single class. You can "be all classes" only if you make lots of different characters. However, what you might mean is that your character can play any role in the team. That is sort of true, except that for the vast majority of play, it doesn't matter, as you will be either soloing or playing DPS anyway.
Any other advice you would give a DDO player moving over to help me get started and not end up messing up my char?
It's nearly impossible to mess up your char in non-fixable way. Try things out.
Maybe that's your problem. GW1 has amazing lore and a lot of it is in quest logs. If you only read 5 of them sure you wouldn't know... The thing about GW is: You have to go out and explore/read to find the lore. It doesn't just pop up wherever you go. GW2 has the problem that a lot of lore/dialouge is put into events or timed voice-overs. It's pretty annoying to catch it even if you try to. That's one reason why I'm not a fan of voice-overs for this kind of stuff. Text is great.
Another problem is probably that a lot of people do things differently in MMOs than they would in RPGs. In single player games you explore anyways because that's what the game is about and you have nobody around to pressure you. In MMOs however people are driven by success. They want to keep up with everyone else so they feel that they have to go out of their way to explore if they could instead grind dungeons, speed level etc.
That's what's so beautiful about GW1, though. When you are on a mission or just wandering around in the world outside the towns, it's just you (and whoever you bring with you), so there is really no pressure. You have much more time to calmly explore or do whatever else you would like to do.
In GW2, exploration is based around going to the locations that ANet think you should go to. You have them on your map and they get filled in when you visit them. Now, sure, there are other things to see, things that are not on the map. But since there are things on the map, the rest gets kind of lost in the noise.
Actually based on much more reliable sources than some random slub on the internet Casey Hudson wouldn't not have had free hands with the ending, and would have been forced to take that bullet for EA. In fact the only person, ever, who seems to be saying otherwise is you. And as we just established; your argument is irrelevant.
And those more reliable sources are? Casey Hudson himself? Apparently not since he agrees with me.