Let me ask a question: In general, we consider arts and entertainment to be intertwined, right? So, what is generally considered good "art"? The stuff that is developed for the lowest common denominator or the stuff that was done well? Why should games be done differently? Why can't we say that GW2 is just like the Twilight Saga? Sure, it is a popular series of movies, but no one is giving it any awards. No one is saying that it is really any good in any objective sense. Why are you saying that games should be held to a lower standard than other art and to ask for more is unreasonable??
Again, I'm not saying that. What I quoted, stated that each encounter in the game requires a human-level AI, which is, unreasonable.
I do agree on improving the AI, but I don't believe that is possible, or reasonable, to achieve a level of AI, where, "efficiency", or "rotations" wouldn't happen. That would make the game unplayable.
Most of the circular discussions on this thread, and forums, happen just because people go to extremes so easily, that you have to become a fanatic of a side to participate.
I don't feel qualified to say how it should be done, it's just my opinion, and just a couple of years of experience. But what can I say? I enjoy this game, I understand its flaws, and I, like you I suppose, want it to be as good as it can be. But I try to keep my expectations within a certain level, that doesn't mean I'll buy anything, or that I don't care about quality. But I have to understand the genre and the type of game I'm playing. Perhaps, that is what let me enjoy the game, at the same time, I expect it to become better.