I don't think this is a particularly good answer, mostly because not everyone has the "friends" experience.
Speaking from my personal experience, Fighters (who play like me, anyway) and Rogues are going to have to drastically play differently, and the Skirmish Game that Rogues are build around is going to be determined by how many take-out effects they have (Waylay), not by how much constant damage they can do. Literally any class can get 30+ armor which leaves at least 1 Flurry Rule attack sequence of attack damage that a skirmish target can ignore if it's just damage.
Now to deal with the meat of your argument. I will assume you are a highly experienced player who has played various rogue and fighter roles over the year. I also fit into that category (my current PC is a scout for reference) and the person you quoted above has been playing a fighter in Alliance for the better part of two decades. In short, there is a lot experience to go around. I'll respect yours. I request that you respect ours.
To start off, I want to examine your claim about how any class can get 30+ armor. This claim while true (always has been true, technically), isn't very meaningful. PvP is not and has never been the primary form of conflict in Alliance. I challenge you to show any evidence to the contrary in any chapter of the game ever. I can think of some specific weekends where it has been the primary form of conflict, but certainly not by the intention of plot, and never as an overall theme for the chapter.
Thus, determining the value of a class based on a PvP concept (armor value of a PC class) means you are using a poor metric to determine value. Even in a theoretical game where the primary combat antagonists were humanoids with class levels, monster camps rarely have the resources to provide armor phys reps for even half the NPCs, let alone all present in a conflict. This applies basically any time all or most NPCs are in-game, whether all participating in the same battle, running multiple scenes / modules at the same time, or some other combination.
Though, to an extent, that doesn't really matter, since armor and body are pretty much interchangeable as far as most NPCs are concerned. And that is the key point. The total "health" of NPCs will drop when the new rules are implemented, because damage numbers are lower. If it doesn't drop, then that is a problem with scaling and whoever in monster camp is in charge of scaling. Those numbers should have already dropped during playtests. Again, if they didn't, that is a problem with scaling. Those numbers went up originally because damage numbers rocketed so high. If the reverse isn't true, then some portion of the game staff isn't doing their job.
Next, I want to look at your claim about rogues. Honestly, it doesn't make much sense. As the game is now, rogues who don't have backup alchemy or spells have only only one real option when in a constrained space: ranged weapons (I personally prefer thrown weapons for rogues). When they are in a non-constrained space, they use positioning to produce damage output.
Nothing about the new rules changes that. In a constrained space, they still are limited. In a non-constrained space, they can deal a big burst of damage when they pull off a flank (yeah, I know the attack is from behind, but a good flank usually forces the issue). They don't need to waylay or incapacitate for that to be true. And if they don't kill the target in three swings, that doesn't mean the target just turns around and pulverizes the rogue. In any sort of team-up / flanking / etc., that means the NPC has just turned their back to the other PC (who will happily "explain" why that was dumb). If it was some sort of "drive-by" attack in an open field (or similar setting), the rogue has plenty of room to back off until another opportunity arises.
The only meaningful situation where a take-out effect was necessary is a solo sneak assault. And in this case, in the current rules, rogues basically always use take-out effects already. Since you never know for sure how quickly your target will respond, or what defenses they might have, relying on pure backstabs when you absolutely need to take someone out alone is foolish. It is foolish in the current rules and foolish in 2.0. That isn't a change.
TLDR: Using metrics that are appropriate for the standard experiences of PCs (no matter what coast they are on), the rules you are objecting to don't meaningfully change play style. And if you honestly think they do, please provide solid examples that are representative of a whole (the spider example above doesn't really work, for example, because, as many have point out, there is no difference between how current fighters and 2.0 fighters interact with web-throwing spiders).
-MS