Are ranged weapons just worse than melee? - Aussie Zone

I’m GMing for a group where everyone (including myself) is entirely new to Pathfinder. We had our session 0 recently followed by a quick practice combat. The thing I noticed from that, plus a little theory crafting of building a low level character myself, is that people using ranged combat felt very underwhelming compared to melee weapon users. * They couldn’t add any modifier to damage * They had far fewer feats upgrading them (particularly compared to dual wielders) * They had fewer “third action” options * Less ability to help out allies with things like flanking * Can’t opportunity attack Sure, for all that they have the advantage of being safer from getting damaged. But it didn’t really feel like a worthwhile trade-off. Does this get better as you level up? Is it just something caused by inexperience? What options can/should you take to make ranged combat feel more interesting and valuable? For context, my party had a rogue and a ranged fighter as ranged users, as well as a barbarian and a magus in melee, and a druid and sorcerer as casters.