But that's not the topic Morrus. We're not talking about the game's overall quality - we're talking about the ability of the game to maintain backwards compatibility. The author is implying "the game will have more trouble maintaining backwards compatibility because relative levels of combat effectiveness have significantly changed". So yeah it's not about the fighter OR the game in general - it's about the game's ability to be compatible with prior adventures and characters from prior versions of the game.
So disagree with it. I don't agree with it, either. I haven't accused the author of trying to mislead anyone or of trying to be inflammatory, though?
Oh, I've said that about a dozen times now. It's my main point, and it's being ignored for some reason. But I'm not gonna keep typing that sentence out; RSI isn't a condition I seek.
Nobody is upset about that as far as I can tell (and now I think you're the one ascribing motives here). We're upset about the conclusion that, because of that disparity, the game will not be as backwards compatible as Mearls and company have said it would be.
You're upset about it? Really? That, then, is my issue. I disagree with the article. I sure as heck ain't upset about it, and see no reason to accuse its author of anything. I find this thread more distasteful than the article, even if the latter is wrong.