Yeah, what he said, we're all doing damage per round. The ones I've looked at all took chance to hit * average damage at some point, whether expressed as such or calculated by "damage if I roll a 1, damage if I roll a 2..."
To other topics, it's true that no melee striker wants a greatsword. In fact, unless you're keterys, no one wants a greatsword.
To answer the claim that average damage is unfairly emphasized, I used my spreadsheet and changed the average damage modifier to only 0.5%. To simulate the importance of hitting, I imposed a -1 damage penalty on misses across the board (lowering the miss damage for a fighter's cleave, setting -1 for the rest).
The only noticable effect this has is that is completely defies logic when looking at the results. You find rangers now want to use daggers, probably because of the throw range. Cleaving fighters want to use Greataxes or Halberds or Longspears (this is reasonable). Nonstrikers want to use the Handaxe or Throwing Hammer. If the value for being throwable is halved, then the Nonstrikers become just like Cleaving fighters, while the Rangers want to use the Spiked Chain. If the penalty for being military is removed because let's face it, only STR-based Clerics have any complaint about that, then EVERYONE except rogues want GA, Halberd, Longspear.
If I crank the "miss penalty" up to 50% of the average damage the only difference is that Lethal Hunters gain a slight edge by using Spiked Chains, which in turn only narrowly beat Bastard Swords (1H) and Short Swords (tied) which beat the other triumverate by an even lesser margin.
It's true that weapons don't exist in a vacuum, and it's possible that a greatsword really is more useful because of that +hit, but in a world where the bastard sword exists and feats are cheap, it's pretty hard to claim the greatsword is worth anything.